Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORTSEA HARBOUR COMPANY BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 28 June.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 28 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Television Licence

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any proposals for increases in the television licence.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: As an application may be made, will the Minister accept that the BBC has a duty to provide an adequate amount of current affairs coverage on its main television channel? There is quite a lot of discontent over recent happenings. Will the Government accept that if there is an increase in the licence fee it will be all the more necessary to have a much smaller licence fee for retired people living on their own?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first point is entirely a matter for the corporation.
A free licence for all pensioners would cost £250 million and that would put up the fee for others to about £70 for that purpose alone. That is too much.

Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend think it is correct for the Home Office to go on being the tax collector for the BBC when not one right hon. or hon. Member, nor even the Committee of Public Accounts, can question how the BBC spends the £700 million which the Home Office so kindly collects for it?

Mr. Hurd: The system has been criticised and examined many times over. All I can say to my hon. Friend at the moment is that we have no plans to change it.

Mr. Kaufman: Following the right hon. Gentleman's unfortunate interview with The Sunday Times a little while ago, will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government have no plans for the privatisation of the BBC, no plans for the introduction of commercial sponsorship of BBC programmes, and no plans whatever for the introduction of commercial advertisements either on BBC television or on BBC radio?

Mr. Hurd: I have done so in the House before, and I did so again a minute ago.

Domestic Nuclear Shelters

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish information on domestic nuclear shelters.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): Information on domestic nuclear shelters is in the booklets "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" and "Domestic Nuclear Shelters—Technical Guidance" which were published in 1981 and are in the Library. We hope to publish information next year on a wider range of shelter designs and materials and on protective measures within the home.

Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that most of the designs which he has so far brought forward and are so far available are far too expensive for the average householder?

Mr. Brittan: A range is referred to in the existing literature and some are specifically designed to be as simple as possible. Research is being undertaken into new designs for improvised shelters, some of which have been tested in simulated nuclear explosions in America.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister consider publishing examples of less expensive designs to augment the publication which has been prepared?

Mr. Brittan: The booklet "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" provides a brief guide to three basic kinds of shelter, one of which is a simple one for short-term indoor or outdoor use, which can be built from materials already at hand. Secondly, there are shelters which can be assembled from kits. Therefore, it is not right to say that the existing material is designed just for the most expensive kind of shelter. We shall consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the new publication.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable expertise that has been gathered on this matter by firms in France and the fact that they are able to offer a package deal to communities in this area? Will he make himself aware of these experiments to see whether we might learn something from them?

Mr. Brittan: We are always willing to learn. My hon. Friend has particular knowledge of these matters, and I shall be happy to consider the point that he has made.

Mr. Allan Rogers: In view of the Home Secretary's answer to a previous question, will he tell the House how one simulates a nuclear explosion?

Mr. Brittan: I think that the information about that will be given when we publish the new design. It will explain the basis of the simulation.

Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider introducing legislation dealing with nuclear shelters as they exist, and have existed for many years, in Switzerland?

Mr. Brittan: I think that circumstances in Switzerland are different from those in this country, and I am not sure that to go along the Swiss road would meet our own particular needs.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: This is all realy a bit of a farce, is it not? It is a fantasy, a bit of propaganda. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that the mystic nuclear shelter can offer a substantial degree of protection in the event of a nuclear war, why does he not make them available for everyone, instead of leaving them, as they are at present, an option available only to the rich, while the poor in high-rise flats, like those in my constituency, will be left unprotected?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could conceivably have read "Domestic Nuclear Shelters", and the description of the basic kind of shelter, for him to put forward that proposition. To introduce the class war into the question of nuclear shelters is really straining the imagination a little too far, even for the hon. Gentleman.

Association of Chief Police Officers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Mr. Brittan: Apart from social occasions, I last met the president of the association on 27 March when he reported to me, on behalf of his colleagues, on the police operation in relation to the miners' dispute.

Mr. Canavan: When will the Home Secretary tell the chief constables to put a stop to police brutality during the miners' strike, otherwise public confidence in the police will be completely destroyed? How on earth can any Home Secretary justify a situation where millions of television viewers can witness a policeman repeatedly lashing out with his truncheon against a miner and be told that the policeman will not face criminal charges? Why is that policeman not being treated like a common criminal, because that is precisely what he is?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the view that the hon. Gentleman has put forward about the conduct of policing operations, and the House had an opportunity last Tuesday to consider the matter at considerable length. Any allegation that a police officer has abused his power or exceeded it must, and should, be looked at properly, in the right way, through the proper channels. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that includes coming to a conclusion on the basis of the limited facts that he has.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on this side of the House at any rate, and in the country, there is warm support for the police in the difficult work that they are trying to do in allowing people to go peacefully to their place of work?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware of that. That support was expressed forcefully in the House on Tuesday. I am sure that it will have greatly assisted the police in the difficult job that they have to do.

Mr. Mason: Does the Home Secretary agree that the policemen on the picket lines are under great stress and strain at the moment? Does he agree that that was anticipated when he met the Association of Chief Police Officers? Did he inform the members of the asssociation that at the conclusion of the miners' dispute a national independent inquiry into law breaking by the police is likely, especially because of the activities of a nationally organised police force, into the prevention of free movement on the Queen's highway, into picket control methods and into the likely cost in compensation to the injured picketers? Did he tell them that?

Mr. Brittan: I did not. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is called for, but I certainly did not discuss it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I revert to the specific incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear that when the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the proper pursuance of his duty, determines independently that a case should not be brought, it will be either because he judges that the evidence available is unlikely to produce a conviction, or that there is some other public matter within his purview which requires him not to prosecute? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is wrong for an hon. Member, with the privilege of the House behind him, to seek to try an accused man?

Mr. Brittan: I agree. I find it impossible to understand how any hon. Member can take it upon himself to be judge and jury in a case of which he has limited knowledge.

Mr. Dubs: In his discussions with the association, will the Home Secretary raise the question of the way in which the police use firearms? In particular, will he tell the association and the House when he expects to have the result of the inquiry into the recent shooting at Tottenham? Will he give an undertaking that the results of that inquiry will be made known to the House?

Mr. Brittan: I announced last December that changes in the selection and training procedures for the use of firearms were required and that I would be discussing them with the Commissioner. The Commissioner's report describes the areas for improvement, and some of the changes have already begun to take place. For example, tighter screening procedures for officers who apply for firearms training has already been implemented. Some of the changes recommended require resources and cannot be made overnight; for example, increasing the length and extending the content of the basic firearms training courses. That is under way.
The report into the use of firearms at the post office in North London on 14 June and the report of the second inquiry into whether offences were committed by the people arrested will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, reports to the DPP are not published, but the consequence of such reports can be considered further.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the police operations to ensure that those who wish to go to work during the current coal dispute have been able to do so.

Mr. Brittan: Major policing operations have been necessary to ensure that people who wish to go to work may do so. Neither I nor the police welcome the need for these operations, but those who believe in the rule of law will be very gratified that they have succeeded in enabling all those who wish to go to work to do so.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that only hon. Gentlemen in the Labour ranks do not have admiration for the police for the courageous and efficient way in which they have safeguarded the going to work of 50,000 miners, despite the fact that in many pits they are under criminal siege? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making the dangerous tasks which the police have to do less dangerous by putting a legally enforceable limit of six on the number of people who may picket, in line with the agreement by the TUC and the National Union of Mineworkers when they undertook to make that part of a voluntary code? They have not lived up to their promise.

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the truly remarkable achievement of the police in making it possible for 50,000 people to go to work. I do not think that at this stage it would be useful to introduce legislation to limit pickets to six—which was included in the code of practice—because the police have powers in common law to limit the number of pickets where necessary to prevent or deal with breaches of the peace. They have used those powers in appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Ashton: Is it the rule of law when a car load of striking miners are refused permission to leave the M1 to go to the county council headquarters in Nottingham to talk to Labour councillors about free school meals for their children, and are then sent back up the M1 and again refused permission to leave it to go to their homes? Was it the rule of law when seven car loads of plain clothes policemen invaded houses in Meden Vale, Warsop this week and arrested miners sitting in their homes—including one miner who was not on strike—and took them away for questioning for several hours? Is that the rule of law in Nottinghamshire today?

Mr. Brittan: If the police seek to stop any vehicle and it is alleged that they are going beyond their power to prevent a breach of the peace, that can be challenged in the courts. If people are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, the police are entitled to arrest them in their homes.
The hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether it is in accordance with the rule of law to organise the descent of thousands and thousands of pickets on a place where it is clear that their presence in such numbers is bound to lead to a breach of the peace.

Mr. Conway: In view of the pressure on conventional policing during current operations, has any thought been given to extending the role of the Special Constabulary to help with conventional police operations?

Mr. Brittan: The numbers in the Special Constabulary have increased recently. It has an important role to play in supporting the police by taking on certain duties to release police who need to be committed to a certain task.

Mr. Alton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the cost so far to Merseyside for policing the dispute is £4·7 million? What comfort can he offer to the hard-pressed ratepayers? Does he agree that it is a scandalous misuse of money for Keeva Coombes, the leader of the Merseyside county council, to hire a double decker bus to send 70 people to Point of Ayr for illegal secondary picketing? Does he further agree that that will not help to settle the dispute, that it will not contribute one iota to doing so?

Mr. Brittan: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I am inclined to agree with him.
On his first point, there is no doubt that many police authorities have incurred a substantial financial burden as a result of policing operations. For that reason, I announced special Government assistance of 90 per cent. of costs incurred above a 1p rate. I recognise that that may still lead to some difficulties for certain forces which have made representations to me. I am considering those representations and hope to make a further statement shortly.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition could get into his head the difference between violent disorder and the legitimate use of force to suppress that?

Mr. Brittan: That is a distinction which we would all be wise to bear in mind al all times.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware that his assumption that picketing miners are blacker than coal and that picket-line policemen are whiter than snow is naive and foolish? Is it not also dangerous, because it polarises both sides in the dispute? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not judge the issues so simply.

Mr. Brittan: I refuse the temptation to equate those who break the law with those who preserve and maintain it. It is a spurious equality to try to say that there is one and then the other. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that the weight of sheer numbers—thousands and thousands of people—is bound to lead to breaches of the law. Those responsible for that have a heavy burden on their consciences.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the integration of voluntary members of police forces from other areas into the areas where picketing takes place? Have they not contributed a great deal to the keeping of order in those areas? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of how they have integrated with the local forces and what contribution they have made?

Mr. Brittan: The aid given by forces from other parts of the country to those who are at the cente of the areas in dispute has been substantial and deeply appreciated. It has been successful in the sense that policemen going from one part of the country to another have been able to make a most effective contribution.

Mr. Concannon: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the time is right to try to gel the


police back to performing their normal duties? It depends, of course, on where one lives and whom one represents what view one takes of the activities of the police at present. Will the Home Secretary use his influence in the Cabinet to get it accepted that now is the time to start getting reconciliation instead of confrontation, so that the police may return to their normal duties?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner the police return to their ordinary duties, the better. I assure him that as soon as there is no threat of a breach of the law by obstruction and by the other criminal acts that take place the police will return to their normal duties. The most useful step that any of us can take to bring that day nearer is to call on those who have been responsible for threats to breach the peace to desist from doing that.

Criminal Justice Strategy

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to carry forward his criminal justice strategy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My right hon. and learned Friend is taking a wide range of administrative measures to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it, and he also plans to bring forward legislation on a range of other issues—for example, on prosecution arrangements, sentencing and the treatment of victims—during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What plans has he to extend the neighbourhood watch scheme? Is he aware that this seems to be one of the best ways of maintaining public confidence in the police, with members of the public working side by side with law enforcement officers?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The neighbourhood watch scheme has been a striking success in the metropolis, where there are 390 schemes in operation and a further 590 planned. The House may be interested to know that in one scheme alone—in the Hurlingham part of Fulham—in the quarter from September to November of last year there was a decline in burglaries of about 50 per cent. compared with the same three months of the previous year. I am glad to say that the scheme is now being extended outside London. One is planned in Cumbria, in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When will the Government's criminal justice strategy include a response to the overwhelming and reasonable demand by judges that they be given power to pass suspended youth custody sentences?

Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong feelings about this issue. It is a matter about which, I am aware, a number of members of the judiciary feel strongly, and the subject is under consideration.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the alarming and worrying increase in the carrying of firearms by criminals, and the consequent issuing of larger numbers of firearms to the police, will consideration be given to the possibility of bringing in a mandatory strong sentence for criminals carrying firearms in the pursuit of robbery?

Mr. Mellor: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, at a convenient time in the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall propose that the maximum sentence for the possession of firearms be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Secretary, as part of his criminal justice strategy, is considering increasing the penalties for child sex offences? If not, will he consider doing so for those who commit such vile offences?

Mr. Mellor: We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about those offences, but we have no reason to think that the law is inadequate in that area. The matter is under consideration by one of the committees which consider these issues, and we shall bear in mind what it says.

Industrial Disputes (Intimidation)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to strengthen police powers to combat intimidation of those not on strike carried out away from picket lines.

Mr. Hurd: We do not believe that the present law is inadequate. The acts of intimidation which have been reported involve the commission of offences under existing law. The problem often lies in obtaining evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend reported to the House on 17 May the steps taken by police to strengthen there efforts on this.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he at least undertake to keep the law under review, bearing in mind that to the majority of British people the extension of intimidation to miners at home, to their wives and to their families is especially nauseous?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, but the horrifying scenes that we have all witnessed on television are not dealt with by Parliament changing the law. They will be dealt with by the National Union of Mineworkers and its members stopping their systematic defiance of the law.

Mr. Flannery: Let us also consider intimidation by the police, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), against those who are on strike but away from the picket lines. We have given example after example of the police pulling out people who have lodgings for the night and attacking them because they happen to be on strike. Can we consider that intimidation, or can we look only at the other side?

Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made plain again and again, including today, there are procedures for dealing with complaints that the police have exceeded their powers, and these procedures are being used. It is not right—this is what is done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly—to equate the efforts of the police with the efforts of the strikers in breaking the law.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend realise that last Friday, at the Cadley Hall pit in south Derbyshire, pickets descended in their hundreds in what was clearly a well co-ordinated programme? These pickets came from all areas of Britain. As a result, the local villages were full


of police vans. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the atmosphere of fear that was prevalent and tangible in those villages was not fear of the police, but fear of what would happen if the police were not present.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That is why the police have, unfortunately, to spend so much time which they would wish to spend otherwise in trying to protect the public from this sort of intimidation.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister comment on the slogan that is now doing the rounds of mining communities, which is, "Do yourself an injury—save police time"?

Mr. Hurd: I think that it is ludicrous.

Richmond Fellowship

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much, in grants, was paid by his Department to the Richmond Fellowship in the last financial year.

Mr. Mellor: Just over £142,000.

Dr. Mawhinney: Before my hon. Friend grants any more public money to the fellowship, will he consider its suitability for receiving it? Will he bear in mind our experience in Peterborough, where a so-called cured and model patient was sent by the fellowship to reassure my constituents about a proposed halfway house? A few weeks later that "model patient" stabbed and strangled his companion to death and has now been sentenced. We were assured by the fellowship that its halls were well supervised, yet the body lay in one for three days before it was even discovered.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with the Department and the fellowship. His remarks will be given the most careful consideration. It has been our experience that the fellowship deals effectively with many difficult resettlement cases. It has been on that basis that successive Governments have granted it money, which sum presently constitutes about £142,000.

International Terrorism

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Council of Europe Ministers of Justice in their study of international terrorism plan to seek to consult other involved countries, including the United States of America.

Mr. Brittan: The conduct of the study will be a matter for the Council of Europe, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will remind our colleagues in that organisation of our related initiatives, including the declaration at the London economic summit, to which the United States of America subscribed.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that international agreements, because of reciprocity problems, are becoming more and more difficult to achieve, not least in the reform of the Vienna convention? Will he accept that this is not the best news that I can give him, but these problems are coming more and more on to his desk? Will he comment on whether concerted national action that is internationally concerted with his colleagues in various countries is perhaps the best way of achieving progress, bearing in mind that action is expected?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that the process of agreeing changes in the Vienna convention is likely to be a difficult one. Progress might be made more effectively and rapidly by agreeing internationally on the application of unilateral national measures which are not inconsistent with the convention; for example, what is to be done if it is found that a diplomat has plainly acted in support of terrorism.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that there is little attraction for the United States of America in signing such an agreement when at least one of the countries in the EEC—the Republic of Ireland—has not yet ratified the convention on terrorism?

Mr. Brittan: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend's belief in the sanctity of diplomatic immunity, expressed at the time of the siege of the Libyan embassy, been dented by the Foreign Office admission that it had, after all, the power to search Libyan diplomatic baggage?

Mr. Brittan: Not in the slightest. It is true that the Libyan Government entered a reservation with their signature to the convention in 1977 which would allow them, in certain circumstances, to have a bag opened, but they never operated that reservation. Such reservations are intensely undesirable, and that is why it has always been our practice to respect the inviolability of diplomatic bags in order to protect our own diplomatic bags.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Home Secretary expect European countries to take seriously our protestations of concern about international terrorism when for three years the Libyan Government proclaimed that they were using their premises in St. James' square as a base for terrorism and the British Government did nothing about it?

Mr. Brittan: The action of the British Government compared very favourably with that taken by other countries that I could name, where there were incidents of great gravity involving the grave abuse of diplomatic immunity by countries other than Libya. The hon. Gentleman has only to travel across Europe to find how wide and recognised a response there has been to the lead that this country is taking in securing international cooperation on terrorism.

Civil Defence

Mr. Walden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that civil defence resources are adequate to deal with the consequences of a possible terrorist nuclear attack.

Mr. Brittan: Our main aim must be to become aware of any impending such attack and be in a position to avert it. If an attack none the less occurred, effective civil defence and emergency service planning would play a vital part in minimising and alleviating its consequences.

Mr. Walden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend sure that the county emergency planning officers are aware of all the contingency plans?

Mr. Brittan: It is very important indeed that the police and all other agencies involved in countering terrorism in all its forms, such as the officers to whom my hon. Friend refers, should have the appropriate contingency plans. Certainly I am anxious to ensure that they do.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Home Secretary agree that his answer shows that there is no clear defence against nuclear attack, whether by terrorists or in any other form? The shelters, which I prefer to call personal crematoria, are certainly no defence. The only defence is to work as hard as we can here and in other Parliaments to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

Mr. Britton: I agree that progress towards arms limitation is by far the best route. However, a terrorist nuclear attack would be the sort of attack against which a substantial measure of protection could be provided, and there can be no doubt that the proper use of our civil defence mechanism would greatly mitigate the consequences of such an attack.

Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the new regulations, and in particular the 100 per cent. grants, are making a useful and prudent contribution to the improvement of civil defence? However, why did my right hon. and learned Friend drop the provision for local authority staff to participate in the training exercises and all the other activities associated with improving our civil defence effort?

Mr. Britton: Because we had received very strong representations to that effect from the local authorities themselves.

Mr. Haynes: When will the Home Secretary wake up to the fact that if we did not have nuclear weapons terrorists could not get their hands on them? On the question of the resources devoted to civil defence, when will the Home Secretary persuade his Government that there is no need to spend money on civil defence because no defence against nuclear weapons is possible?

Mr. Brittan: It might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that terrorists would not necessarily help themselves to our nuclear weapons—they could conceivably get hold of other people's.

Prison Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women are in prison at present.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): On 15 June 1984 there were 42,743 males and 1,537 females held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend think it necessary or desirable to lock up so many people in prison?

Mr. Waddington: It is obvious that we should always examine alternatives to custody. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the courts were given new powers to impose non-custodial sentences.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would not any reforming Home Secretary be absolutely determined that, except for capital offences—which women do not normally commit—women should not be put in prison? Does the Minister agree that it is pointless putting men or women in prison for drugs or drink offences and that what we really need are far more facilities in the community to keep women out of prison?

Mr. Waddington: As I have already said, we should always examine the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment, but it is unrealistic to imagine that we shall swiftly arrive at a state of affairs in which it will not be necessary to send some women to prison. That is inevitable.

Mr. Rowe: When my hon. and learned Friend examines alternatives to custodial treatment, will he see how much scope there is for extending the requirement for people to report for a number of hours during the week, as that is often a much more effective way in which to deal with people than taking them out of employment for long periods of time, thus creating the problem of how they use their spare time?

Mr. Waddington: That is obviously one of the many matters that ought to be considered and kept under review.

Mr. Corbett: Is it not the case that one reason why there are more men than women in prison lies in the burgeoning crime that has occurred under this law and order Government? When will the Government take real steps to bring down the level of crime?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He should be aware that, on 1 July this year, there will be a reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole, which might mean 7,500 additional adults and 2,700 young offenders getting parole. The hon. Gentleman knows that the courts now have great powers to impose non-custodial sentences, and efforts have been made to reduce the number of fine defaulters who go to prison. That is not the record of a Government who do not recognise that we should try to reduce the prison population wherever possible.

Mr. Couchman: What progress has my hon. and learned Friend been able to make to empty prisons of alcoholics, inadequates and the mentally ill?

Mr. Waddington: It is most important that we always consider the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment. It is our job to put as many forms of treatment as possible at the disposal of higher courts and magistrates.

Mr. Alex Carlile: As there are many mentally ill people among the 46,000 who are in prison, does the Minister agree that it is scandalous that there are only about 25 registered mental nurses employed in the prison service? Will the Government undertake a thoroughgoing review to ensure that proper mental nursing provision is available in the prison service?

Mr. Waddington: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point, but it goes far wide of this question. Perhaps he would like to table a question on the matter at another time.

Radio Stations

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the independent radio operators since his decision to permit foreign based stations to broadcast in the United Kingdom by means of land lines.

Mr. Hurd: Officials have had a number of discussions, and I met representatives of the Association of Independent Radio Contractors on 13 June. Among other matters, we discussed their continuing concern over the question mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not clear that companies such as LBC, Radio Essex and others, which contributed more than £6 million last year in levies and rentals, and the programmes of which are strictly controlled by the IBA, are now to face unfair competition from offshore companies such as Radio Luxembourg, which do not pay one penny and are not controlled by the IBA in any way?

Mr. Hurd: The decision flowed mainly from the larger decision taken by the House and the Government to abolish the monopoly in telecommunications in this country. We understand the strongly held anxieties that are felt about the matter. Despite the difficulties, we are considering whether we can find a way of meeting those anxieties.

Civil Defence College

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Civil Defence college, Easingwold will be offering courses for the volunteer training officers who will be required to train local authority civil defence volunteers required under the new civil defence regulation 1983.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. The working party on the training of civil defence volunteers is now considering how that should be done, and it will report soon.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for volunteers to come forward and to be trained, under the provisions of the 1983 civil defence regulations? If he thinks that it might be helpful for college staff to go into the field to meet volunteers on their own ground, will he encourage them to do so?

Mr. Hurd: That is an excellent idea, which is put into practice already to some extent. When we have received the working party report, and when a new principal of the college has been appointed, we shall consider how to take the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that, to many, the miners' dispute seems to be going from bad to worse? We have all viewed scenes that bring fear to those of us who believe in democracy. Can the Prime Minister, from her great office of state, think of any initiative that could be taken to prevent this desperate dispute going on into the winter months?

The Prime Minister: The strike will end when the miners return to work and accept the very good offers that have been made, as 50,000 miners have already done. More are returning each day. Two of the three unions are already sitting down with the National Coal Board and are prepared to work out a revised "Plan for Coal". If more would follow their excellent example and take advantage

of a very good pay offer and the best-ever redundancy terms—already some 16,000 people have inquired about redundancy—the strike would be over. That would be a great relief for everyone.

Mr. Hanley: Is my right hon. Friend broadly satisfied with the performance of Ministers at the Department of Transport? If so, does she believe that they could do a better job than the GLC in regulating traffic in London, especially in the Talgarth road-North End road area, where motorists from my constituency are being caused much disturbance?

The Prime Minister: The Department of Transport is doing an extremely good job. I do not think it is the Department's task to sort out the Talgarth road problems.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Contingency Reserve that was announced in the February public expenditure White Paper is being so rapidly depleted, how does the Prime Minister propose to meet the Government's commitment when the reserve is finally exhausted? Will that be done by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing or, as we fear, by another public expenditure review?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain, if the Contingency Reserve were to be exhausted—which it is not—which course the right hon. Gentleman would be recommending. The Chancellor laid out the choices in the Budget very effectively. The Government believe that they must contain public expenditure within the plans that we have already published. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted.

Mr. Hattersley: The frivolous way in which the Prime Minister deals with this does nothing for international confidence in the British economy. She must know, that the dispute in the coal mines has already cost £1 billion. She must know that there is a substantial payment to be made to the EEC which was not anticipated when the Contingency Reserve was set up. She must know that the Government's estimate of public expenditure, pay, and unemployment payments has already been exceeded. How do the Government intend to meet the shortfall?

The Prime Minister: Our intention is to keep public expenditure within the planned totals. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do or say, but he must be pretty desperate to have asked his second question.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 30 pits have already suffered serious physical damage as a result of the strike in the coal, industry? As we plan to invest £2 million per day in the future of coal, is it not a tragedy that so many pits and jobs should be put at risk in that way?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. Three faces have already had to be closed—one at Rossington, one at Bold and one at Tilmanstone—and others are in danger. One hopes that the miners will return to work before any more faces have to be closed. So long as they stay out, more jobs will be in jeopardy, because strikes destroy jobs


not just in the coal industry but in steel and other industries and in British Rail. Indeed, strikes are the greatest job destroyer of all.

Mr. Concannon: The Prime Minister constantly prays in aid the 50,000 miners who are at work, as though they believed in her policy, or Mr. MacGregor's policy. Is she aware that that is not so and that their problem lies elsewhere? [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it to the vote."] It has been put to the vote in my area. Is she further aware that some of us are not against Government interference in the dispute but that it is the way in which the Government intervene that matters?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, the miners in his area put the matter to a vote and abided by the result. In our view that is because they believe, as we believe, that coal has a very good future and that this Government have done more than any other to improve the prospects for that future, having invested £2 million for every day that we have been in power.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: After due reflection on the results of the European election, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Conservative party achieved 13 more seats than the Labour party and half a million more votes? Does she agree, therefore, that in a general election the Conservatives would be returned to government and that only the Labour party leadership could describe such a defeat as victory?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would add just two things to his excellent list. First, it was the fourth parliamentary election in a row to be won by the Government. I refer to the general election of 1979, the Euro-election of 1979, the general election of June 1983 and the Euro-election of June 1984. That is a first-class record. Secondly, the margin by which we won the Euro-election was greater than that in seven of the past 12 general elections.

Dr. Owen: In view of the fact that British Steel now risks losing customers and its workers risk losing their jobs, and in view of the massive cost of the police operation and the growing strain on the police of having to resist picketing action, will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why she has not suggested to British Steel that it is time it invoked the provisions of the civil law against secondary picketing?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the same question two or three times in one form or another and he will receive the same answer. Those in charge of the nationalised industries are free to invoke the law when they so choose. It is a decision for management to take.

Mr. Hal Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members have been writing to trade unions inviting them to take additional steps, including industrial action, to clinch victory for the miners? In the light of the Government's record on investment in the mines, the new pits that have been opened and the NCB undertaking that there will be no compulsory redundancies, does my right

hon. Friend agree that victory for the miners and their families would be a return to work in face of the political activities of Mr. Scargill and his bully boys?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The pay award keeps the miners 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage, which has always been an important point for them; our investment in the industry exceeds that of any other Government and shows great faith in the future of the mines, and for those voluntarily leaving the industry redundancy payments are better than ever before. Therefore, for all those involved in the coal industry there is a good future if they will only seize it and return to work, thus assuring the future of the industry and those who work in it and in associated industries such as steel and the many engineering industries.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the recent report by the NEDC, which described Britain as becoming a Third-world industrial nation, will the Prime Minister consider the fact that there must be more investment in industrial development, especially in areas where coal mining has been run down and mines have been closed? Will she consider that report and agree to invest more capital in areas that need industrial development?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that Mr. MacGregor has set up an organisation to achieve jobs in areas affected by closures. He will be pleased to note that total fixed investment grew by 10 per cent. in real terms between the first quarters of 1983 and 1984. It is productive investment that matters.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the importance of the Ravenscraig steel plant to the Scottish economy, which was highlighted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs some time ago, any move to put it at risk may lead to substantially more unemployment in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Moves to put any of the steel plants at risk will lead to substantial unemployment, not only in the steel industry, where it is easy to lose customers to the continent, but in the pits, because the steel industry takes 4 million tonnes of coal a year from the National Coal Board. Such moves would also lead to substantial unemployment in the railway industry, which carries coal from the pits to the steel plants. Unless those plants are kept working, we shall have widespread unemployment. It is interesting that Opposition Members often express anxiety about unemployment, yet they support strikes that increase unemployment.

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: As the height of the tourist season is approaching, will the Prime Minister spare time to give attention to the harassment and frequent delays that beset lawful visitors to the United Kingdom at Heathrow airport? Is she aware that a constituent of mine waited from 3 o'clock one Sunday afternnoon until 1 o'clock in the morning for three Indian sportsmen who had come to take part in a tournament? Does she recognise that that is unworthy treatment and brings the country into ill repute?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the service at Heathrow airport is good, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will write to me about that specific case, I shall look into it.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time to study today's reports, which describe how the activities of picketing teachers at a school in Kent have resulted in 400 pupils being turned away from school in the middle of their examinations? Does she agree that to jeopardise the educational future of children in that way is unacceptable?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is utterly disgraceful to jeopardise the future of children in that way. It is an appalling example to children when teachers go on strike. The children will think that they can do the same to get their own way.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow I shall attend the funeral of Mr. Joseph Green,

a picket who was killed on the picket lines last Friday? Will she bear in mind that she has the power to bring the two sides together and help them to come to a satisfactory and honourable settlement? If she fails to do that, does she realise that the mining industry and others will hold her responsible for future injuries and deaths?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. He will have a sorrowful occasion tomorrow, as will the family concerned, and he knows that everyone deeply regrets such a death.
With regard to what he said about the coal industry, he knows that two out of the three unions of mineworkers are already prepared to sit down and negotiate with the National Coal Board on the "Plan for Coal". He knows that 50,000 miners are at work. He knows that there is a good prospect for the coal industry. He knows full well that uneconomic pits have always had to be closed. He knows full well that 330 pits were closed by Labour Governments over 11 years and that we have closed only 92 pits in nine years. He knows the facts and the prospects for the industry, and I hope he will urge people to return to work.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 25 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the London Regional Transport Bill. At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
TUESDAY 26 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Rates Bill. Completion of remaining stages of the Roads (Scotland) Bill (Lords). Remaining stages of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill (Lords). Motions on Northern Ireland orders on Education, University of Ulster and industrial training.
WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's reply (Cmnd. 9140) to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83 HC No. 32, on the Representation of the People Acts. Motion on the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order. Motion on European Community Document 8018/83 on industrial technologies.
THURSDAY 28 JUNE—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day): there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
FRIDAY 29 JUNE—A debate on the problems and needs of disabled people, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 2 JULY—Debate on the report of the New Ireland Forum and other documents. Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.

[Debate on 27 June: European Community Documents and relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

Document

8018/83
Research action programme on



industrial technologies.

Relevant Reports
HC 78-xxvii (1983–84), para 2 (23 May 1984) and
HC 78-ix (1983–84), para 6 (7 December 1984).]

Mr. Hattersley: I thank the Leader of the House for his response to our request for a debate on the New Ireland Forum. Can we take it that during the debate the Government will make a definitive statement on their attitude to the proposals?
Secondly, we take it for granted that the Prime Minister will make a statement on her return from Fontainebleu. Can we also be assured that the House will be given an early opportunity to debate the outcome of that meeting?
Thirdly, will the Government arrange a debate on the latest OECD half-yearly forecast? The Opposition are especially concerned by the suggestion that unemployment is likely to increase even more, and we would welcome the opportunity to advocate the clear course that the western European countries should combine to reflate their economies and reduce unemployment rather than increase it.

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. The usual channels

can be employed to consider a debate on the OECD half-yearly forecast, although I should have thought that the Opposition day debate on Thursday would cover many of the economic issues which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the meeting of European Heads of Government at Fontainebleu, and there will also be a debate on the European Community in the near future.
Finally, I note with appreciation the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the decision to have a debate on Monday week on the New Ireland Forum report and other documents. In that debate the position of the Government will be stated.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend recall that two Estimates days, on which important debates may take place, have to be taken before 5 August? Will he agree that it would be unfortunate if both those days were taken towards the end of the period before the recess? Therefore, if he cannot arrange for one next week, will he bear very much in mind the need to have one the following week?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. He will appreciate that we are getting to the time of year when there is some inevitable congestion in the programme. He makes a valid point, and I shall see what can be done.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How can it be justifiable to include in the business for next week a motion to approve a draft Order in Council, which has been found to be a hybrid order, before the date has passed for the submission of petitions against that order?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman was characteristically courteous and kind enough to give me notice of the point. It has not been in my possession sufficiently long for me to have undertaken the appropriate consultation to give an authoritative reply. Therefore, I should like to deal with it through the usual channels.

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the fact that the controversial Warnock committee is due to present its report next week, I believe, on the subject of human fertilisation and experimentation on human embryos, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will certainly be a ministerial statement on the subject before the House rises for the recess, but preferably that there will be a full parliamentary debate on a matter of the highest importance?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the interest and, indeed, the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks on this subject. I shall of course refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Dr. David Owen: In view of political opinion in the country, whether one takes the European elections or the Portsmouth, South by-election, how does the Leader of the House justify a 17 : 1 ratio in the allocation of days to the Labour party versus the alliance as opportunities to criticise the Government? Since this is a totally corrupt system, is it not time that it was changed?

Mr. Biffen: The system is one prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman——

Dr. Owen: Corrupt.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman cannot just sit there and say, "Corrupt." As a good democrat, he should seek to alter the system through the processes of the House.

Sir David Price: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 817 on the virtue of brevity in debate?
["That this House recognises that for a speech to be immortal it does not have to be eternal and that the standard of debate would be greatly improved if all back-bench speeches were limited to 15 minutes and all front-bench speeches to 30 minutes without the specific permission of the House."]
Will he introduce my proposal this coming week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that Front Bench speakers should not speak for more than 30 minutes and Back Benchers for not more than 15 minutes?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir; and no, Sir.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House recall that a week ago today he announced the business for yesterday, Wednesday, as being non-divisive Scottish business? Does he recall that this was coupled with Scottish questions which meant that it was a 100 per cent. Scottish day? Yet the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a very important statement which was 100 per cent. related to England and Wales. Since Opposition Members had notice of the statement from only 1 pm yesterday, will the Leader of the House ensure that any subsequent statements which have been a long time in gestation are made with informal notice to those who would like to be present?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot believe that there is anyone in the House who would be so innocent as to describe Scottish business as non-divisive. Therefore, I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is up to hon. Members to treat this House as a place of full-time work if they wish to be here to hear statements.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend allow time soon for a debate on the many changes that are occurring in the financial institutions in the City of London today and the measures that are required to safeguard the public interest?

Mr. Biffen: I realise that there is a real and growing interest that the House should have a debate on this topic, and although nothing has been announced for the week ahead, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Leader of the House recall that I raised the matter of the dissatisfaction with the way that the Boundary Commission operated before the last general election, not in a narrow political sense but in the wider sense, and I asked some months ago whether there could be an inquiry? It was suggested that it would be better to wait until the European elections were over. May I nudge the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that the Home Office, which I love dearly, moves with its customary speed?

Mr. Biffen: I accept the nudge and will do my best to transmit it to the Home Office.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the definitive statement by Ministers in the debate on the New Ireland Forum make it clear that, while the views of overseas countries are always taken seriously, the paramount consideration of this House is the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to anticipate the speech which I know that my hon. Friend will want to make on that occasion, but I note what he said.

Mr. A. J. Beith: What happened to the second half of the 12th Opposition Day? When it was given over by the Labour party to the Government, was some undertaking given that it would be returned in kind at a later date, or was this another of the cosy arrangements by which the Government secure that they have indefinitely an Opposition that cannot win?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman properly perceives all this in the language of cosiness. I cannot immediately answer him, but I will have a look into the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Might it not be wise to have a debate about the finances of the EEC before the meeting at Fontainebleau? Might there not be some misunderstanding if the Prime Minister committed this country either to a loan or to an increase in own resources without the authority of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) only too well, and as we are having a debate soon on the European community I hope my hon. Friend will think this is a reasonable deal for the House.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House had time to read the report in The Guardian that the food industries are trying to pre-empt a Government report on food labelling, and thereby divert legislation, and as the health of many people has been damaged, and this subject has been neglected, can we have a debate on it shortly, please?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and as he is a seasoned campaigner on selective issues, I would have thought that he might have tried his chance with an Adjournment debate to give this subject wider ventilation. I shall refer the point that he makes to the relevant Ministers.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Following the question of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will my right hon. Friend accept that what was non-controversial yesterday was the education statement, to the extent that the hon. Gentleman was here for an earlier statement but he and his colleagues managed to leave the Chamber, even though four Labour Members asked questions on that statement? Can we have an early debate on improving education, as well as on the examination system, because both the hon. Gentleman and I should be able to contribute to that?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the previous question, because it enables me to have a quick second thought and say that I would not wish the preponderant majority of this House to be full-time Members. I return to my hon. Friend's point. I shall bear in mind the request for a debate on education, but my hon.


Friend will realise that there are many pressures on our time at this time of the year. I hope that he will feel that yesterday's statement made a start.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The Leader of the House is alleged to be one of the more sensible and perceptive members of the Government, which is not saying much. Can he persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement next week in which she acknowledges that there are no winners in the miners' dispute, that we are all losers and that the language of triumph and victory that she uses, is inappropriate and offensive? Are we not all part of the same community and interdependent, and do we not have to live together? Therefore, in that statement will she, for the first time, act as a Prime Minister rather than as the leader of the Tory party?

Mr. Biffen: I must repudiate the hon. Gentleman's premise. I stand here clothed only in gut Tory prejudice. I am happy to refer the hon. Gentleman's second point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the House of Commons Library acquires at the earliest possible moment the forthcoming biography, of the Leader of the Opposition by Mr. Robert Harris? It seems from leaks that it might be a most important document of record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead of us. That question has nothing to do with next week's business.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House recognise that many of us acknowledge that his responsibilities transcend those of bring a member of the Cabinet and include responsibility to the House and to the nation at large? We are now approaching the period in which we are thinking of the summer recess. Will he concede that it would be disastrous to continue the vexatious and divisive dispute in the mining industry without an attempt either by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Energy to bring the parties together to resolve the dispute in the interests of the nation and the industry? Will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Energy to do the job that he is paid to do?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House again that questions must be directed to next week's business and must not be questions that might be asked of Ministers.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will pay no attention to the requests of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for more time to be given to the alliance, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's habit of requesting debates in other people's time only to show contempt for the House by not attending?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Allen McKay: Taking into consideration the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), the fact that the Government have not been able to start, talk or force the miners back to work, the fact that Ian

MacGregor has now decided that the strike could go on into next year, and the information that we have had today on the conditions of pits and the probable escalation of the strike, does not the Leader of the House think that it is time the Government initiated a debate on the mining strike and its effects? Would it not be wrong not to have a debate before we go into recess?

Mr. Biffen: We are still quite some way away from the recess. Clearly, the business that has been announced for next week does not make provision for a debate on the dispute, but we have to review the situation week by week.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to my namesake's question, in the light of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been reported as saying that Mr. Scargill is single-handedly destroying the mining industry, and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has suggested that Mr. Scargill is on a suicide mission, is it not vital that we have a debate on the mining industry next week? Does not my right hon. Friend think that that would be extremely helpful to clarify the views of the Opposition?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made succinctly the very points that he would have made if the debate had been held, and he ought to take comfort from that.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware of the answer given to me yesterday by the Home Secretary in which he admitted that cars used by NUM pickets were being entered on the stolen vehicles index by the national police computer? Is not that an attempt to make all pickets into criminals, or at least to call them criminals, an example of the police state methods that are being used against the NUM, and yet another reason for an urgent debate on the future of the mining industry and ways to end the dispute?

Mr. Biffen: The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a serious one, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a full day ahead of us with an important Opposition debate. I propose to allow questions to continue until five minutes to 4 o'clock.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: Since the NUM has £35 million in its coffers, would it not be appropriate for Mr. Scargill to advocate to his members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, but business next week has nothing to do wih Mr. Scargill.

Mr. Terlezki: Thank you for your help, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the leader of the NUM is advocating that there are uneconomic pits, will he not consider taking them over into co-operatives, and release the taxpayer of £2 million per day investment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get some order into these exchanges. The hon. Gentleman did not even mention the business next week.

Mr. Greville Janner: Can we have a debate next week upon the evidence given to the Select Committee yesterday of the horrific number of serious criminal offences committed by diplomats in this capital? If not, can we have a statement by the Foreign Secretary


or by the Home Secretary which will at least repudiate the implication of a remark made to the Select Committee yesterday by a witness to the effect that the Government do not after all, despite their promises, intend to try to have the Vienna convention amended?

Mr. Biffen: I think that it would be a wise courtesy to await the report of the Select Committee.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: My right hon. Friend, I imagine, expects that in the next week or two he will be receiving some rather interesting and constructive amendments to Government business sent to us from another place. In order to make it easier for him and for the Government in the House, will he look with favour upon some of those amendments coming from another place?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend would expect of this Administration, everything will be judged on its merits.

Mr. Allen Adams: Since you have correctly reminded the House, Mr. Speaker, that questions should relate to the business next week, against the background of the recent European election results, which show that the people of Scotland think very differently from the people of England, may I ask the Leader of the House whether time can be made available next week to discuss home rule for Scotland and the establishment of a parliament in Edinburgh?

Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for that topic next week, but, should it arise, I think that it would be more embarrassing to the Labour party than to anyone else.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that, following my Adjournment debate on television licensing, I have been approached by a large number of Members on both sides of the House asking for a full and thorough debate in the House on the financing and financial control of the BBC? Could he find time, if not next week, very soon in the future, for the House to debate this most important subject?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once that this is a most important subject. Equally, I have to confess that no time has been made available for such a debate next week, but of course I will bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Could the Leader of the House make some provision, if not next week, some time in the near future, for a debate on drug abuse in view of the widespread concern in places such as Merseyside—and, indeed, in other areas—which is

beginning to affect whole communities, given the apparent disregard that the Government have for these problems? Would the Leader of the House not agree that this is an urgent matter, and that time ought to be given for the House to debate it, and to take the sort of actions that need to be taken?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Indeed, it touches upon a topic which goes much wider than Merseyside.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) as helpfully as possible? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that early-day motion 367, which says that there should be no increase in own resources, bears the signatures of 103 Members, more than half the Conservative majority. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be wise to clear the principle of an increase in own resources before agreeing with our European friends because, were the House later to throw out a proposal from Brussels, it would be embarrassing and difficult for the European Community?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be happy to be reminded of that.

Mr. Bob Clay: Has the Leader of the House read the report in this morning's Daily Mirror, which gives a further example of intimidation against strikers and pickets in north Nottinghamshire, where the National Coal Board is effectively threatening to evict coal board tenants who accommodate strikers? In view of the hypocrisy that we have heard from the Government Front Bench about so-called intimidation by strikers, should we not have a debate next week, or at least a statement by the Home Secretary, about the intimidation of strikers and pickets in Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the best way that I can help the hon. Gentleman is to refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Report stage of the highly controversial Repatriation of Prisoners Bill is taken on die Floor of the House instead of in Committee, since both previous stages have been taken in Committee and the full House has not had an opportunity to debate the measure?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that, and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Parliamentary Language

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that, as reported in column 289 of the Official Report yesterday, I raised the question of parliamentary language and in particular the remarks reported in column 286 about miners being "common criminals". You will have seen the quotation—
because"—
said the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone)—
that is what they are."—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286.]
Have you, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to reflect upon that, or have you received a request by the hon. Member to apologise to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I undertook yesterday to look at the Official Report, I have studied it with care. I say again to the whole House that when we discuss these matters we must do so with extreme care because of the sub judice rule. Having studied the Official Report, I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)—in column 292—went very close indeed to drawing attention to an individual case. I can only say again to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that when we deal with such matters we must exercise extreme caution.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to mention my part in the exchanges yesterday when I referred to an individual case as one of the 736 cases to which the Solicitor-General for Scotland had referred. I claimed that each of the 736 cases' had been prejudiced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone)—a lawyer who should know better—who described the people as "common criminals" before they have been tried.
I must put two matters to you, Mr. Speaker. First, some restrictions in Scots law do not apply in English law, particularly in relation to cases before they come before a court. The matter has been compounded by the BBC which this morning—in bad judgment, I believe—transmitted verbatim the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. There can now be no doubt that the trial of every one of the 736 people to whom the Solicitor-General for Scotland referred yesterday has been prejudiced as a result of what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said.
You, Mr. Speaker, have not ruled that this case is sub judice, but there will be other cases in future. It would be in the best interests of the House, since the House has sole control over the broadcasting of proceedings, if you rule that the BBC should not transmit what you rule to be sub judice. Such transmissions merely compound the felony such as that committed yesterday by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. We should have your guidance on that.
Secondly, in the presence of the Leader of the House and of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, may I ask the latter to come to the House some day next week, when he has had time to consider the matter, to make a statement about the position of the 736 miners, and some of their wives, to whom he referred yesterday?

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the

fact that you have given some thought to this matter. As you will be aware, the position in Scots law is that prosecutions are considered by the procurator fiscal. I am sure that no one in the House would want to challenge his independent right to apply the criterion of sufficiency of evidence to an incident reported by the police, and then to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
There is an enormous distinction between a man charged and a man convicted. In the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), it appeared that he was making a fundamental confusion between the two positions. He made what appeared to me to be a rash and unpardonable assumption—surprising from one of his experience as a solicitor—that someone charged was a common criminal, that he was assumed to be guilty and should be treated in the same way as someone who had been convicted.
Two points arise. One, which has been fairly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), is that trials are pending. The High Court of Parliament is the last place where such assumptions of guilt should go unchallenged. I accept that it is possible to argue that no sheriff is likely to be influenced by a passing intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and that, therefore, we are going over the top on this issue. However, the matter is of fundamental importance. There is nothing more important in the courts of Scotland than the presumption of innocence, and I believe that applies in the courts of England. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you rule on the matter.
The second point is personal to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, and relates to his subsequent attempt to clarify the matter. He suggested that he had not made the conclusion to which I referred and that he was being wrongly challenged. It is clear from Hansard that he said to the Solicitor-General for Scotland
Can he also assure the House that they will be treated in the same way as other common criminals, because that is what they are?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984, Vol. 62, c. 286.]
The challenge was perfectly fair; it is on the record and was on the basis of what had happened.
I accept that, on occasion, people say things in the heat of the moment and perhaps do not formulate their thoughts accurately. It is unfortunate if, after that, they refuse to accept the reality of what they said. I give the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South credit for not wanting the confusion to remain on the record. I am sure that the House would be grateful if he made that clear and accepted the distinction that I have made, which he singularly refused to accept yesterday.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The intended meaning of my intervention during questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland yesterday was, in my view—I hope—made perfectly clear in my subsequent intervention finally allowed by you during points of order. In the absence of any indication from you, Mr. Speaker, that I was in breach of the sub judice rule or any of the Standing Orders of the House, I see no need to withdraw or qualify any of the remarks that I made yesterday.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day in front of us, with an important debate. I have looked very


carefully at this matter and I am satisfied that nothing was said by the hon. Gentleman yesterday to contravene the sub judice rule.
Nevertheless, I am bound to say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman—he is, after all, a Scottish lawyer—that the language that we use in this House and the allegations that we make under privilege should be made with extreme care.

Mr. Malone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I did not make the position crystal clear to Opposition Members, I wish to take this opportunity to say that miners who have been convicted of offences on picket lines are, in my view, common criminals; miners who have not yet been so convicted are not. There, I believe, the matter rests. I do not think that I can make my views any clearer than that.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an interesting precedent for exactly the same sort of incident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when he was Prime Minister, referred to the arrest of two criminals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—two people who were arrested, who, as subsequent events proved, were criminals. They were arrested following a chase. My right hon. Friend said that the two guilty men had been arrested. He later apologised forthrightly. I suggest that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) simply and directly apologises to the House, especially for the implications for the 736 people involved.

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to persuade the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South to do that. The whole House has heard what he has had to say on the matter.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Could I seek your clarification on remarks that you made on this matter yesterday, Mr. Speaker? You said in Hansard that you were
concerned only with accusations that are made about hon. Members."—[Official Reoprt, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 289.]
The accusation yesterday was made about people outside the House. Therefore, are we to presume—I hope that I am wrong—that there are first and second-class citizens in these matters and that hon. Members cannot be accused but that people outside can be accused? There is no doubt——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman, as he is straying into rather dangerous territory. I remind him that I said yesterday:
I listened with great care for reference to sub judice matters, but no individual names or cases were mentioned at all in the exchanges this afternoon."—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 289.]
There is no question of first and second-class citizens.

Mr. Hamilton: I want to ask for clarification, because this matter will be raised during the next few weeks and months. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and others can get away with making a charge and accusation about a group outside the House, however extravagant the language——

Mr. Allan Rogers: They are a bunch of crooks.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is under no obligation either to moderate his language or to withdraw his allegation. He is still adhering to the view

that the miners are common criminals. That was the undoubted implication of what he said yesterday. It is a scandal that he does not have the guts to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the point of first and second-class citizens, during your study of column 286 did you notice the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who referred to
bloody pitched battles provoked by hooligans in uniform ', sing truncheons and horses' hooves to beat the miners into submission?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286]
That appeared to raise a number of questions not dissimilar to those being raised by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the next debate, it would be a pity if we were to pursue a matter on which I cannot really say any more.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has given his explanation and said that he is not prepared to withdraw. There is no way in which I can force him to do so. He must take his own responsibility.

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. "Erskine May" is quite clear on the matter. It states on page 343:
By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question.
Therefore, it is clear that what I referred to, and what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) does not fall within the sub judice rule because, unfortunately, none of the hooligans in uniform have been charged.
"Erskine May" continues:
If the subject matter of the question is found to be, or becomes, sub judice after notice of the question has been given, the Member is asked to withdraw it.
Surely, it is within the spirit of that resolution of the House that if, during a supplementary question, an hon. Member refers to a case or a collection of cases—the number and whether the names are mentioned are irrelevant, although there are 736 cases—he should be obliged to withdraw.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) made some attempt to explain himself today in an unsatisfactory manner, in the same way as he tried to explain himself in an unsatisfactory manner yesterday. You, Mr. Speaker, seemed to gain the impression that he had withdrawn his statement yesterday, as you will see if you look at your remarks in column 292 of the Official Report, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) suggested that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South be made to withdraw his remark. You said:
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has already done that.
Clearly he did not, for in his statement reported in column 291, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said:
I made no allegation about people who have been arrested and are awaiting trial.


That is an untruth because earlier, at column 286, the hon. Gentleman said in reference to the prosecution of miners arrested while picketing:
Can my hon. and learned Friend"——
the Solicitor-General for Scotland—
assure the House that they will be treated in the same way as other common criminals, because that is what they are?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286, 291–2.]
As other hon. Members have said, the fact that his words have been widely reported in the media in Scotland will possibly prejudice the trials of those 736 miners. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that he withdraws the remark because I am sure that if I or other Opposition Members had made a similar statement about people awaiting trial, we would have been forced to withdraw it.
Can a communication go from your office, Mr. Speaker, to the office of the Lord-Advocate, who has responsibility for all prosecutions in Scotland, pointing out the possibility of the trials of these 736 miners being prejudiced by the intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South in referring to them as common criminals before they have even had the opportunity of a fair trial?

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The principle behind the sub judice rule as it applies to prosecutions in Scotland is to protect the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said. The ratio of how that law is applied is to prevent any further discussion which advertises what may be thought to have been a contradiction of the presumption of innocence, and the more that it is discussed in this House in the sort of language just used, the more the presumption——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I agree with those wise words, and I think that we had better leave it there.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a different subject. May I draw your attention to the arrangements in the House for the notice that is given of ministerial statements? Hon. Members will appreciate that it is within the power of a Minister to seek permission to make a statement at any time, and we understand why, some days at 3.30, only short notice is given when a statement is to be made about events which have occurred very recently.
Yesterday there was a statement about a matter of great importance to the whole country, a statement which had been in preparation not for five hours or five weeks but for nearer five years. The time chosen for that statement—it was within the power of the Government to make the request—was a day which was not convenient to hon. Members.
My understanding is that the arrangements of the House, and those of the Chair, frequently result in the use of the phrase "for the convenience of the House". The notified business for yesterday was clear, and it was not until 1 pm that the intention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement was made known to hon. Members, certainly on these Benches.
Can you give guidance to the House, Mr. Speaker, about who gives permission for statements to be made? Is it the House, is it yourself or is it entirely at the request of the Government? If it is the latter, I hope that the Government will accept that the convenience of the House, particularly on matters about which there may be no great controversy or urgency, should be borne in mind. I hope that you can give guidance to the House on that matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The business of the House must be predicated on the assumption that all hon. Members will attend and perform their duties in the House. It is not satisfactory, surely, to suggest that some business is second-class and can be ignored, whereas other business must be attended by some who have a greater interest in it. I hope, therefore, that any ruling you give on the matter, Mr. Speaker, will be based on the assumption that all hon. Members—as is the case on these Benches—are full-time attenders, and not part-timers as apparently is the case on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is referring to a situation in which statements are a long time in preparation. The suggestion that was made by the Leader of the House that either my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South or other Opposition Members were not full-time Members was outrageous, given the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—in a debate which I was unfortunately not able to attend—[interruption.]reminded the House that 300 hon. Members were directors and that many Conservative Members had full-time jobs outside. The moonlighters on the Conservative Benches——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Banks: Is it in order for the moonlighters on the Conservative Benches to cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, who, like me, if he is not in this House, is in his constituency, where some Conservative Members should spend some of their time?

Mr. Speaker: In terms of good order, it is not in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to cast aspersions on anyone else in the House. To answer the serious point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the timing of statements is a matter not for the Chair but for the Government. The phrase to which he draws my attention—I say this with deference to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)— "with the leave of the House" is a courtesy, and "Erskine May" adds:
Prior notice to the Speaker is necessary, but neither his permission nor the leave of the House is required.
It is therefore entirely a matter for the Government. I realised the importance of that statement, and I hope that, in that realisation, I was able to call every hon. Member who was anxious to put a question on it to the Secretary of State.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 9 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. David Ashby
Dr. Brian Mawhinney
Mr. Allan Rogers

Opposition Day

16TH ALLOTTED DAY

INMOS

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
That this House, concerned at the continuing fall in the United Kingdom share of the rapidly growing world market in information technology and particularly disturbed by reports of the impending disposal to foreign interests of Inmos, the only independent British firm with a major capability for developing the semiconductor technologies crucial to the economic and strategic future of the United Kingdom, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure the continued rapid development of Inmos and its products and to maintain it as an independent company under majority United Kingdom ownership and control.
The main focus of my remarks will be on the dangers that I foresee for the future of INMOS, a danger that the Government have a clear interest and duty to avert. Their amendment, clearly—I might say, almost notoriously—fails to deal with the major substance of the motion. It gives no guarantee whatever that, in transferring INMOS to private ownership, there will be any safeguard to ensure that the company is not broken up and that it remains under British ownership and majority control.
I will, at the outset, set my remarks both in the context of our publicly stated objectives for the development of semiconductor technology in Britain and in the wider context of the development: of information technology, in which advanced semiconductors play a vital part.
Few will dispute three crucial issues that are expressed in the motion. First, there is the overriding importance of Britain's ability successfully to compete in the world market. This essential objective
will become increasingly dependent on the ability to incorporate electronics into the products and services on offer and the use of electronic techniques in design, manufacture, quality control and in management.
Those words appear in the report last year to the NEDC of Sir Ievan Maddock, a man nurtured by the Atomic Energy Authority, who from 1971–77 was the chief scientist at the Department of Industry and from 1977–81 secretary to the British Association.
Still more recently—only last month—Professor John Ashworth, chairman of the information technology committee of Neddy, outlined the significance of information technology, a major part of electronics, when he asserted:
Information technology is not just a new industry but a new way of conducting industrial, commercial, educational, administrative and even aspects of domestic and political business".
Information technology covers the acquisition, transmission, processing and presentation of information in all its forms—video, audio, text and graphics—and brings into its industrial scope telecommunications, hardware and software, the peripherals of computing and a vast range of advanced office equipment. So much for the importance of information technology.
Secondly, no one would dispute IT's enormous, feverish rate of growth. It has grown by 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. per annum in the United Kingdom for most of the past decade and by up to 35 per cent. in the economies


of our principal competitors, the United States and Japan. Thirdly and sadly, there is the grim fact that we are falling behind, in spite of all our natural endowment of inventiveness and scientific intelligence, the performance of our rivals.
I shall illustrate my argument by the use of six quotations from the paper presented by Professor Ashworth, the chairman of the little Neddy on information technology. The paper was presented to the recent meeting on 22 May of the NEDC. What does he say about the facts? The paper states that our share of the aggregate output of the five leading nation's information technology industries has dropped from 9 per cent. to 5 per cent. since 1970. More recent figures show that
in 1982 UK IT Industry had an output of £3·3 billion, a trade deficit of £460 million and import penetration approaching 50 per cent.
Last year, in spite of a leap forward in output and exports, imports
increased to take some 54 per cent. of the UK market and the trade deficit is now £800 million.
Professor Ashworth's second point is:
every one of our industrial competitors gives high levels of support to this industry. The most recent programme to be announced is that of West Germany, which will provide about £800 million over four years for research and development support, public awareness and public procurement. Given this, and the fact that many of our competitors start from a stronger industrial or economic base, the competitive threat to the survival of an independent UK IT industry is now acute.
The third and most serious point in Professor Ashworth's statement is as follows:
on present trends the UK will not have an independent, broad-based IT industry by the end of the decade. It will have a mixture of inward investment, UK owned companies employing licensed technology and specialised niche and applications companies. If this happens, the ultimate losers will be those concerned with the manufacturing and service industries which could rise from or be influenced by IT.
Those are the words of the man who presumably enjoys the greatest confidence of the Government. They appointed him the chairman of the little Neddy in charge of IT.
Professor Ashworth's fourth point is that, while welcoming the moves that the Government have made to put
the UK firmly in the starting blocks",
it is unfortunate that
in the race that follows there are stronger runners than ourselves and we are falling behind.
We surely all agree that we cannot be content. We shall not accept that the United Kingdom should become, as Sir Ievan Maddock warned us,
a technological colony of large offshore companies which will determine what products are made where and when and how high or low the national standard of living should be.
So much for what the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House would surely agree upon. I do not deride what has been done by the Government and their predecessor, but it was especially disturbing to discover only a few days ago that less than £8 million of the Government's five years £350 million Alvey programme, intended to produce a British version of the computers of the 1990s, is actually being spent, although we have now entered the second of the five years. It is even more worrying to learn, as we did only yesterday, that science research faces a 25 per cent. decline in expenditure over the next decade. That was the evidence given by Professor

Sir David Philips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and by Dr. Derek Roberts, director of research at General Electric to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. When we add to this the lack of trained personnel, the smaller proportion of our young people enrolled in full-time higher education than in the countries of our principal competitors, the actual reduction in facilities and in intake in a number of our high technological universities, the need for a new, much more energetic and much better directed national effort becomes abundantly plain. So much for the general background of electronics and information technology in the United Kingdom.
I turn to the achievements and prospects of INMOS. The background is well known. In 1978, the Labour Government decided that it was essential for Britain to have its own source of mass market microchips. As the private sector was not manufacturing them and as America and Japan were roaring ahead, it was decided that public enterprise would have to take the initiative. We decided to invest £25 million of public money in the launch of INMOS, based upon three brilliant innovators, one British and two American, in silicon chip semiconductor technology, with a further £25 million to follow. Initially, the enterprise was started in Colorado Springs, but the purpose was to shift the centre of gravity to the United Kingdom—at Bristol the headquarters, research and development and at Newport the most modern and sophisticated manufacturing plant, and as soon as possible.
The strategy of INMOS was threefold. This was reiterated in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The first part of the strategy was to establish a viable memory business. The second was to enter the microcomputer business, using the memory business as a vehicle. The third part was to combine the two capabilities using advanced computer-aided design to compete in the market for silicon systems.
INMOS has already established itself in the mass memory business. Its first development has been in random access memories, where its development of the 16K static RAM has already brought it 70 per cent. of that specialised world market, mainly in the United States.
Its second development, at both Colorado Springs and at Newport, is the manufacture of 64K fast dynamic RAMs, where it is now achieving a major position in the world economy. It is moving ahead extremely fast. In just five years INMOS has become a major success. It is Britain's—and Europe's—only independent company in the world business of making general purpose microchips.
This is far from the complete story. INMOS appears poised to repeat its achievement in the other major market for microprocessors, using its revolutionary transputer. It has also created leading edge processes, significantly including those in the category that I am advised will be the most important in the next decade, which is CMOS. This is an area where the Japanese predominate, which makes today's news that a Japanese company, NMB, as I am sure I heard it confirmed only a few hours ago this morning, has purchased INMOS's CMOS technology—a remarkable endorsement of the calibre of INMOS's present capability.
This is, of course, the second phase in the INMOS strategy. The INMOS transputer, due for sampling later this year, is recognised as a major technical advance in microprocessors. Its performance and ease of use will


make it a major competitor in the conventional microprocessor market, while the ability to interconnect large numbers of transmitters to build more powerful systems gives it a unique opportunity in the future market for fifth generation computer systems.
INMOS has developed one of the most advanced design aids in the world in which rapidly to create and test its products. I was glad to read that this has been taken up and will be exploited by Racal.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in accepting that the company's technical prowess is no longer at issue. It has put in place the building blocks for the next generation—the system on a chip. It is against that background that the House should now confront the serious threat that now exists—with the Government's connivance, if not instigation—first to break up INMOS into two separate parts and then to sell one half to the American giant American Telephone and Telegraph and the other to International Computers Ltd., which has just signed a new technological and sharing agreement with the Japanese company Fujitsu. If that were allowed to happen, Britain would cease to have what it has tried so hard and so successfully to achieve in the past six years—the possession of a world-class capacity, based and owned in the United Kingdom, to produce semiconductor hardware and software, which is crucial to our economic future.
The implications of such a decision are serious. I hope that the House will bear with me while I briefly tell the story of what has happened during the past few weeks and months, which has given us and should give the Government so much concern.
The company is now surging forward. With the rapid build-up of output at its very modern Newport facility, the company moved into profitability in the final quarter of 1983. My information is that that profitability has been more than sustained in the first quarter of 1984 and that the company now expects to make a profit in 1984 of at least £12 million.
There is a need for further expansion, and new investment in 1985 of the order of £60 million to £70 million. At least two thirds of that will come from internal profits, leaving considerably less than £20 million to be raised from external sources.
The merchant bankers who advise INMOS had carefully constructed a British consortium which was expected to provide some £30 million this summer, but the terms and the arrangements had been largely designed before INMOS surged into profit at the end of last year. The Minister for Information Technology and the Treasury decided therefore that £30 million was not a good enough deal. And the Treasury, greedy to make the maximum possible from the sale of publicly owned assets, has insisted upon alternative and more profitable arrangements.
During Question Time on 6 June 1984, the Minister for Information Technology confirmed the story as I have told it so far. He then said:
A group of investors had proposed to make a placement of £30 million in new shares in the company, but in the light of Inmos's current performance and its improved prospects the Government have withheld signature of the British Technology Group to this proposal. The BTG is actively exploring other options for the transfer of the company to the private sector".
Pressed by other hon. Members and indeed by myself about what these other options might involve, and in

particular whether the Government were seriously thinking of selling INMOS to AT and T, the Minister gave this apparent assurance:
There is no proposal of which I am aware for the outright purchase of Inmos by an overseas firm."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 291–293.]
At the time, the House must have concluded, as I did, that no takeover of INMOS by AT and T or any other company was in prospect. However, I have subsequently discovered—if I am wrong, it is up to the Minister to deny it—that while the Minister was linguistically correct in saying that there was no proposal for outright purchase by an overseas firm, there was a proposal, of which he was aware, for AT and T to buy the total assets of INMOS and to leave nothing but the company shell to its present owners. I do not think that the Minister was frank or open with the House. As we shall see—and this is more serious—the criteria laid down by the Minister in reply to questions about the conditions that might attach to the sale almost exactly fit the AT and T package proposal.
The Secretary of State and his Minister have apparently persuaded the Treasury that it would be just too embarrassing—as well as financially absurd—to allow for a straight AT and T takeover. They have there fore prompted the coming together of AT and T and ICL to make a new proposal under which AT and T takes over the ultra-modern plant and facilities at Newport and Colorado Springs while ICL acquires the crucial research establishment at Bristol.
I am reliably informed that an ingenious package for financing has been put together whereby AT and T would acquire both the assets and liabilities of INMOS. All that AT and T needs to do is to pay £58·5 million in three instalments of £19·5 million—the first upon contract, the second 12 months later, and the third two years after purchase. On my calculation—and the calculation of those inside INMOS—the greater part of the purchase price would be paid from the surging sales and profitability of INMOS itself. That apart, AT and T proposes to invest an additional £70 million, mainly but not exclusively in the Newport operation.
ICL would assume responsibility for Bristol. AT and T agrees that, as part of the overall deal, it would negotiate transfer of the assets and liabilities of Bristol, and the rights to the transputer, to ICL. Precisely what that negotiation would involve I do not know. But the arrangement would be bound to be complex because any development of the transputer into manufacturing would require the use of the Newport facilities, which AT and T would then exclusively own.
I can see why these arrangements would, in general terms, appeal to the short-term cash thinkers in the Treasury and to the Secretary of State and the Minister. The Treasury would get more money back, and it would be relieved of the responsibility of assisting Britain's major semiconductor firm to develop in the future. The Secretary of State would be able to say that at least the Bristol facility and the transputer remained under British control.
However, the House should be very much aware of the damaging consequences that will flow from such arrangements. First, if AT and T takes over the Newport facilities there is no guarantee at all for the future. We have had experience of paper guarantees before, and the


guarantees that the Minister for Information Technology sought to give—those carefully tailored and carefully worded quasi-guarantees—lack real substance.
The plain truth is that AT and T is not interested in INMOS technology. AT and T willingly confesses that that is so. It has no intention of pursuing its strategy or of continuing to produce its products. It has its own range of products and services and its own corporate strategy. What AT and T wants—this is why it is in the market place—is, first, to use the ultra-modern facilities at Newport and Colorado Springs, secondly, to get under the 17·5 per cent EEC tariff by establishing itself at Newport, and, thirdly, to get close to major British consumer companies. In short, the 64K RAM will be discontinued and the transputer will depend entirely upon ICL.
Secondly, ICL for its part has no experience in, and no manufacturing capacity for, the transputer. It would have to lease capacity from Newport from AT and T, to redesign the transputer to use AT and T's processes and to accept a delay of at least a year in its entry into the world market. Meanwhile, ICL has just signed a co-operation and technical agreement with its Japanese partner Fujitsu, which will be only too happy to manufacture in Japan the revolutionary transputer developed in the United Kingdom.
The extremely innovative and important design work done at Bristol is dependent on intimate links with process development at Colorado Springs and with manufacturing at Newport and Colorado. It is utterly unrealistic to believe that transputer development could continue successfully following the split being proposed by AT and T and ICL. The links to AT and T technology would be too remote and uncertain and ICL would not be able to provide the necessary environment or background, other than through its Japanese partner, to maintain INMOS's transputer in its path. In addition, INMOS's worldwide sales organisation would be broken up and, far worse, there is good reason to believe that many of the brilliant team who are now at Bristol would disperse to find jobs elsewhere.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have followed my right hon. Friend's comments closely. Does he agree that he is making a strong case for INMOS remaining wholly in public ownership, as that would be in the interests of the nation and protect the interests of the work force at Newport?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. We share a strong belief that when public money is invested and there is a great public benefit to be gained, it is only sensible to keep the concern in public ownership. That view is not shared by the Conservative party, and it is in government. The issue is not just whether INMOS should remain publicly owned, but whether it should remain in British ownership. It is whether the company should be available for development by British interests according to British strategy.
As a result of the sale, Britain would lose its major independent capacity in semiconducters. INMOS would be broken up, its strategy would be abandoned, its products would be discontinued and its great achievement and its prospects as a worldwide exporter of RAMs and still more advanced systems would be aborted. We should be dependent for economic and strategic uses on American extra-territoriality legislation and American presidential

policies—a point which ought to weigh especially heavily with the Secretary of State after his unhappy experience in the United States recently. It would not be good enough to say that, as part of the package for obtaining the Newport and Colorado Springs facilities, AT and T was prepared to bring with it, as dowry, some new technology of its own. We must ask whether, in two or three years' time, it would choose to repeat this with the next leading edge capability. That has not happened with other multinational plants, and there are good reasons for that. Even if AT and T wished to make such technology available, would it be allowed to do so by the American Government?
What makes all this utterly unacceptable is that it is totally unnecessary. The success of INMOS has reached the point at which Thorn-EMI is offering £10 million for a stake in the enterprise, the Dutch are willing to finance a £50 million facility at Linberg and there is no need, given INMOS' cash flow this year, for more than a £10 million to £20 million recourse to additional capital.
The Government's proposals are strongly opposed by the work force, the management, the directors and the very innovators who made INMOS a reality. The Government are opposed by them all. The sale of INMOS now would be financial folly; to abandon its public stake would be no better than ideological spite; to break up the company would be little short of lunacy and to put it into the hands directly of the Americans and indirectly of the Japanese would be little short of technological treason. This is an issue that should be judged on its merits and against the criteria of major British interests. I call on both sides of the House to support our motion and to resist the Goverment's amendment, which fails to give even one assurance that the House should be demanding.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the importance of the United Kingdom establishing a strong position in world information technology markets; welcomes the substantial contribution made by the information technology programme of Her Majesty's Government to the international success of the industry; and supports the objective of Her Majesty's Government of transferring Inmos to private ownership.'.
I welcome this chance to debate the new technologies and INMOS. I welcome, of course, the fact that the Opposition have been kind enought to use one of their half Supply days for this purpose. I even welcome the efforts that have been made by Opposition Whips to drag some Opposition Back Benchers in to listen to the debate. By their efforts, they have more than doubled the number present from three to seven—a triumph indeed—to show how important the Labour party's Back Benchers regard this subject.
I shall deal immediately with some of the points that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised.

Mr. Martin Flannery: When did the Secretary of State do anything but act like a semi-house-trained polecat? What a nerve he has.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I do have a nerve—sufficient nerve to denounce the brazen impudence of people such


as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who was dragged in by the Whips to make up the numbers.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney had great praise for the German programme. He said that it was £800 million over four years. I remind him that Department of Trade and Industry support for research and development and product development in 1983–84 alone amounted to more than £200 million. That represents a fourfold increase on the approximately £50 million for 1978–79. It is in sharp contrast to the programme that we inherited from the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the so-called Ashworth report.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave me for a moment, as I should like to get on a little further with my speech.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tebbit: No. I am sure that I shall return to the point that my hon. Friend wants to make. I suspect that I know what it is, as I heard quite well what he said from a sedentary position.
In regard to the Ashworth report, at least the right hon. Gentleman had the understanding to know that it is not a secret report that has been suppressed, as has been suggested by some parties. It has been available ever since it was discussed at the National Economic Development Council office, and I am extraordinarily surprised that anyone should have believed that it was secret or would not he published. The report made some criticisms and gave great support for what the Government are doing.
Typically, the right hon. Gentleman judged the Alvey programme by the amount of money that has been spent in the first year—£8 million. That is typical, as his only criterion is how much we spend. I remind him that, by the end of this year—1984–85—about half the total programme—roughly £175 million—will have been committed.
The right hon. Gentleman went into the typical opportunism of the Opposition by risking harm and causing prejudice to INMOS with some of the most flatfooted partisan blunderings into matters that he does not understand that even he has ever committed. He quoted estimates of profits and the like. He must know from his time as a Minister, when he had some shreds of responsibility, the risks that he is taking with the company by doing that. He must know that I cannot comment on those forecasts. An implication could be read into my not commenting on them, because I could be construed by other authorities as talking up the price. It is easy, and irresponsible, for the right hon. Gentleman to bandy figures, and it is impossible for me. In much the same way, he bandied around a lot of rumour, talk and prejudice about possible terms and understandings and about offers that are or are not being made. It would be irresponsible for me to become involved in a discussion, across the Floor of the House, on these most delicate commercial negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is busy putting at risk out of prejudice and partisanship.

Mr. Shore: We know that it is a very hot day. That has had some effect on the right hon. Gentleman, especially

with his general temperament and disposition. I must say that it is not good enough to try to avoid the responsibility of replying to a serious debate by saying that it is not possible for him to discuss the matter, although the public and open finances of INMOS have come before the Public Accounts Committee. We know exactly what those are.
Nor is it enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot comment upon documents that have been submitted to him. If he inspected them, he would see that they mean the breaking up and smashing up of INMOS and its handing over to foreign industrialists. The right bon. Gentleman must be responsible.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not refusing to discuss confidential negotiations that are directed towards getting the best possible deal for INMOS, the taxpayers and this country. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten.
Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly confused about the matter. At one moment he was welcoming the INMOS-NMB link, and at the next he was deploring the ICL-Fujitsu link. He could not even manage to distinguish between patriotism and xenophobia.

Mr. Shore: rose——

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman had better sit down. I did not interrupt his speech. He can wait a little before he interrupts my speech further.
The right hon. Gentleman made a great issue of extraterritoriality. He must be having trouble with his random access memory today. The Labour Government based the whole INMOS strategy on risks of extra-territoriality. The firm is based on the technology of two American firms and one British firm and the importing of United States technology from a United States base. Could there be anything more prone to risk than that? Indeed, the Labour Government based their strategy on that, although we do not take too much notice of that.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On the issue of extraterritoriality, I am sure, although I cannot speak for the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that the key issue to which he alluded—I am sure that he will be able to confirm this in a moment—was not that of extra-territoriality in the sense used by the Secretary of State, but rather, the issue of the Americans seeking to impose United States law and to make the writ of that law run in Britain. That is a totally different matter. The Secretary of State knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Tebbit: I know that the fear in the hon. Gentleman's mind is that the Americans——

Mr. Ashdown: And the fear in the industry.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman fears that the Americans might control the secondary export of technology, but he should fear that they will control the primary export of technology as well. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney totally ignored that factor.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed the Labour party's commitment to technology, but what he has really affirmed is a commitment to spending on technology. It is certainly not a commitment to the effective use of technology. That it has never had.
The ideal of the right hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom are in the trade


union movement, is to have a vast and expensive collection of mint, unused technologies of the sort seen in Fleet street, and never to use them at all. The Labour party always votes for taxpayers' money to be spent on technology and always supports the strikes that prevent that technology from being used when we attempt to introduce it. That is entirely consistent. The right hon. Gentleman is a closet Luddite. If we followed the programmes that he has put forward, we would have too many exhibits in his museum.
The right hon. Gentleman was a little strong on his business acumen today in telling us how to manage negotiations and so on. He comes from a tried and tested team, I must say. Just look at them. There they are, the team that brought us De Lorean, telling us how to manage INMOS. It took a bit of skill to land that one, did it not?
That was not the only one. There was NEXOS which was a mere £31 million; there was Aragon, which has cost £4·5 million in cumulative losses to date; there was Insac, which cost just another £7·2 million and which went into liquidation in 1982; there was Alfred Herbert, which was just a light-hearted £75 million mistake. The record of the NEB, which is the record of the right hon. Gentleman, is outstanding in only one case. If we examine the trading results, the NEB made a loss in every year of its existence, except in 1976, which was its first full year, when it had not really got going.

Mr. Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Government's investments in high tech are likely to be better than those of previous Governments?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall come back to that in a few moments.
I shall not go into some of the sad stories of heel-dragging over the introduction of the new technology which has been so expensively bought. I shall not go on for too long about the overall losses of the NEB and the fact that cumulative losses at the last published result are £105 million.
We share the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a commitment to new technology, not as a commitment to public expenditure but as a source of wealth and prosperity. It is hard to overstate, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the importance of the new technologies, not so much in their own right as in their pervasive effect throughout the economy. In printing, it is not so much the mechanics of the process when it was invented as the effect of that technology on a myriad of activities and the creation of myriads of others hitherto unknown. The new technologies are pervasive. They are available to us to cut costs and to improve traditional products. They will allow us to create new products, services and activities. Economic survival demands that we should embrace the new technologies and leave behind the obsolete restrictions.

Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Gentleman is off the INMOS point, having indulged in a good deal of badinage, and is now on to wilder flights. Will he reassure the House that he will return to the central question of the debate—that he will arrange whatever deal is open to us and, whatever the Trappist secrecy vows he deals under, do his utmost to safeguard the British

interest in INMOS and not allow AT and T to walk away with the technology that has been aquired at heavy cost already by this country?

Mr. Tebbit: Like the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I know when to be silent about the private affairs of my patients, among whom I number INMOS. I know what I should and should not say in public. I shall return to the policy on INMOS before I sit down.

Mr. Flannery: Come back to it? The Secretary of State has not even started to talk about it.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Hillsborough is not really bright enough to notice what is being said in the debate.
We accept that there must be changes in education, training, apprenticeships, products, services and techniques, and in industrial relations. Government policies have changed to that end. For example, my Department—this is putting together the spend of the two previous Departments and correcting for the loss of activities of the transport section—spent in 1978–79 just over £2 billion in money of the day. Of that, nationalised industries and state-owned companies consumed more than £1 billion—more than a half of it. Some 5 per cent. of the total spend went on scientific and technological assistance. That was the position that I inherited from the right hon. Gentleman's technologically active Government.
In 1984–85 we plan to spend £1·5 billion in money of the day—a 25 per cent. reduction, which will doubtless please my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and indeed all my hon. Friends. Of that, however, less than a quarter is scheduled for the support of state companies and nationalised industries, and 25 per cent. of the total spend will be on scientific and technological assistance. In the light of all that, does the right hon. Gentleman still have the sauce to defend his record and attack mine? I shall be very surprised if he has.

Mr. Shore: I have indeed. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that we are discussing probably the fastest-growing industry of our time, on which not just Britain but all countries have been spending far more in the late 1970s and the early 1980s than they were 10 or 12 years ago, because that makes sense. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to suggest that, because he is spending more, he must be doing well, when Britain is losing its market share and the great possible advantage that we had.

Mr. Tebbit: The market share was being lost on the very industries that the right hon. Gentleman was supporting with £1 billion per year expenditure on nationalised industries by one Department alone.
We recognise that microelectronics is a key to competitiveness in world markets. The market is massive. It is forecast to be about £50 billion by 1990. Unfortunately, very few people have even troubled to get the facts straight. On the "In Business" programme last night on BBC Radio 4, it was said that INMOS was the only chip-maker in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the BBC and the right hon. Gentleman are unaware that Ferranti has pioneered uncommitted logic arrays and for the past two years has been the fastest growing manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. Moreover, STC has announced a £60 million expansion of its plant at


Footscray to provide memory products, and two weeks ago Plessey announced that it intends to build a £50 million integrated circuit plant at Plymouth. The right hon. Gentleman should encourage his friends to take a broader view. Investment in the industry is growing rapidly, helped by the second microelectronic industry support programme which I announced in the Budget debate, which means a further £120 million to encourage investment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having visited Newport as a guest of INMOS, I understood that Ferranti was not competitive with INMOS in memory products. Is the Secretary of State saying that that is no longer true?

Mr. Tebbit: No. I was suggesting that in debating new technologies we should take a broader view. They are not in competitive fields, but both manufacture chip devices, albeit of different kinds.
Foreign investment, too, has flowed in. In 1981, Motorola announced a £60 million expansion at East Kilbride. The Nippon Electronics Corporation of Japan announced a £31 million semiconductor production facility in Livingston to employ up to 650 people, and National Semiconductor has announced a £100 million investment at Greenock leading to 1,000 extra jobs in the next five years. I know that they are wicked foreign multinationals, but when a wicked foreign multinational, such as Ford, wants to close a small foundry, we find that labour Members love multinationals and want more investment from them.

Mr. David Crouch: My right hon. Friend has talked a great deal about the new technologies and the advances that we must make. Is he confident that new technology of this kind will develop in the United Kingdom if we lose the making of process silicon entirely to the United States so that the Americans can cut off our supplies if they wish?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall return to that matter.
Our semiconductor base also attracts related operations, such as the silicon slice plants being introduced by Monsanto and Shin-Etsu Handotai. Major world producers of the product are coming to Britain. But we do not have to get hooked just on making chips. What counts is using them in industries, both new and old—in printing, textiles and packaging, as well as in making video-recorders and televisions. That may well be where the real reward comes.
The United Kingdom, as a market, has seen rapid growth in output of microcircuitry, which doubled between 1978 and 1982. There has been equally rapid growth in the use of microchips. For instance, Germany's share of the use of integrated circuits in Europe fell from 32 per cent. in 1980 to 26 per cent. in 1983, but the United Kingdom share has risen from 20 per cent. to 29 per cent. That puts rather a different gloss on the unrelieved gloom described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. The United Kingdom market for semiconductors grew by 40 per cent. last year, and we now have the fastest growing integrated circuit industry in Europe. European comparisons, however, are not enough. The international market in IT products and services is very competitive indeed. American and Japanese firms especially have attacked overseas markets with great determination and success.
The Government's commitment in supporting research and development in this area is evidence of the importance that we attach to producing the most highly competitive technology. The Alvey programme, which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney tried to badmouth, is aimed at keeping Britain in the forefront of IT research and development and up to £200 million of the total five-year cost of £350 million will come through the Government.
We must also press for the European market to be as far as possible a single market for IT products. The little Englander approach simply will not do. The United Kingdom has been a major contributor to the development of international standards, especially in Open Systems Interconnect and the recent European Industry Council meeting established a high level group to co-ordinate and promote this.
As I have said, the United Kingdom is increasingly favoured as a base for American and Japanese firms looking to supply information technology products to the European market, including IBM's decision to manufacture its personal computer in Scotland, Hewlett Packard's investment in Bristol and plans by other firms such as DEC and Microdata. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney sometimes welcomes these developments and sometimes does not, but never faces the fact that, if we followed his advice and left the European Community, there would be a darned sight fewer of them.
Despite all that, however, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government for setting up INMOS. They were right to do so. The company has been a success, albeit a rare one, and it is only fair to give credit where credit is due, even if it leads one to believe that there is some truth in the suggestion that if a troop of monkeys were left to jump on the typewriter keys for long enough they would eventually produce a Shakespeare sonnet.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he was one of the most enthusiastic attackers of the National Enterprise Board, which set up INMOS, and a vehement opponent of industrial intervention of this kind?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is quite right. I attacked the NEB because it got things overwhelmingly wrong. It deserves a mark of about one out of 10. It has been disastrous. Nevertheless, by firing the shotgun into the bushes often enough, it managed to get something right. I am a fair-minded man, and I am willing to give it credit for that.
Over the years, Governments past and present have put £65 million into INMOS. The company is now beginning to make a profit, and its prospects are good in a notoriously volatile industry. It has established itself as a credible supplier of high quality microchips. It is set to become the largest semiconductor company in the United Kingdom and was rated eleventh in the world on sales of VLSIs—very large-scale integrations. It is a world leader in fast static random access memories, and it has a good position in so-called dynamic RAMs. It also intends shortly to enter the important business of electronically erasable memories. I shall recommend one of those to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney so that he may be more effective in future.
The most exciting potential product of INMOS is the transputer. It is a computer on a chip which promises fast and flexible operation in a computer architecture, Which


offers new ways of organising processing. As a precursor to the transputer, INMOS has been promoting its programming language Occam, which has been well received. These developments are reflected in the compliment which the Japanese paid to the company by seeking a licensing agreement, and by the company's financial results. Naturally, INMOS took a while to establish itself.

Mr. Roger Stott: Held up by the Government.

Mr. Tebbit: Propped up by us.
After a loss last year on sales of £38 million, the company made a profit in the first quarter of 1984 of £1·2 million on sales of £19 million, and there are prospects of more to come.
The centre of gravity of the company is shifting to the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made another of his random access mistakes. He said that the Labour Government established the company at Newport. They did not. They had not decided where it would be established or made any arrangements about it. They had not firmed things up when they collapsed in a heap in 1979. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales who was influential in establishing the company there. Production was deliberately started in Colorado, because the object of the exercise was to acquire United States technology. Production in Newport is growing, and at Bristol the company has a world class design centre for microchips.
The press has been confused and contradictory about INMOS, and that was well reflected today. It is said that Ministers are determined to sell to the Americans for peanuts. It is also said that they are confused and divided. It is further said that they are wilfully refusing golden offers from would-be buyers, who are flushed with cash.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should tell us the truth.

Mr. Tebbit: I always do.
The reality is more prosaic. INMOS is a good firm with good prospects, springing from its product development and market strategy. It has benefited from changes in the market, but it will need substantial additional capital investment. I shall not trade guesses with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about that. I find myself in the embarrassing position of not being able to put right many of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. That is a pity, because I should love to take him apart on the realities as opposed to his fantasies. My responsibilities for the company's future prevent me from doing that.
I am certain that the right course is to transfer the company to the private sector and to let investors put up the cash needed to advance the enterprise. It is nonsense to suggest that we are abandoning the company. The company's management would not wish to remain for ever in the public sector. After all, two thirds of its founders were good American capitalist venturers.
The British Technology Group and INMOS are pursuing various possible options for introducing more private sector capital into the company. The House will be aware of the interest of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and of the offer that was announced

by Thorn-EMI to invest £10 million for a minority stake in the company. There are other possibilities—for example, the option of a flotation in the United Kingdom, in the United States, or in both countries.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney must realise that he is not increasing the prospects for a successful outcome to these discussions by tabling today's motion. It may be that he does not wish to improve those prospects. He may want to make it impossible for the Government to sell the company to the private sector, and to ensure that it remains for ever as a state company. That would be compatible with his philosophy, but it would not be in the best interests of the company or of Great Britain.
I shall not conduct discussions in public at fourth hand about the future of the company. BTG and INMOS are responsible for the conduct of the negotiations, not the Government. BTG must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under the statutory guidelines, for the disposal of shares in INMOS.

Mr. Shore: The Secretary of State made it clear that he has responsibility. Will he guarantee not to permit the sale of that majority Government interest to foreign investors if and when INMOS is brought into private ownership?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall deal with the matter in the best national interest. The right hon. Gentleman is free to argue whether what I decide is in the best national interest, but I shall not guarantee to exclude any potential purchaser. If he has two penn'orth of common sense, he would know why.
The House is entitled to be told the factors that the Government will bear in mind when they consider the request of the BTG for consent.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Tebbit: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has found time to attend the debate. I thought that he would be commiserating with his brother, who lost his post in the National Union of Mineworkers, or preventing his constituents in Bolsover from working in the coal mines.

Mr. Skinner: Far from losing his post, my brother has been nominated by the Nottinghamshire NUM to be the Labour candidate for Sherwood. Far from weeping, he is looking forward to the next general election and to kicking out the Tory Member. Then there will be two of us instead of one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We should return to INMOS.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover will do as well in the next election as he did in the one in which he has just been defeated.
The price that BTG will receive for the shares depends on the value that prospective investors place on the company. It must take into account the cash requirements of the future company, its current performance and improved prospects, and it should be fair to the taxpayer. It was with those and other considerations in mind that the Government withheld the BTG's signature to a proposal, which I thought interested the right hon. Gentleman for Bethnal Green and Stepney but which apparently does not any more, from a group of investors to put £30 million in new shares into the company. The offer was turned down because it was not good enough. I was not willing to


recommend it to my colleagues or to defend it in the House. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman made such a meal of it in his speech.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his understanding of the term "best national interest" means that we shall not sell INMOS at bucket shop prices, and that we shall not sell it to a company which would strip it of the expertise that it has gained?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) should also mention the technology that the company has gained from overseas, especially the United States. I shall not sell it at bucket shop prices. Had I been prepared to do so, I should have accepted the £30 million deal towards the flotation. I shall look after the British national interest. I am not prepared to eliminate some contenders and to favour others in a way which would be contrary to the objectives that I have set out.

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the legitimate interests of the House will be served by knowing what criteria he will apply to the sale that will protect British interests. That is the central question in the debate, and I hope he will not try to escape it in this great farrago of badinage, which I admit he is doing rather well.

Mr. Tebbit: That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman, who often does it well himself. That is why he is overshadowing the other fellow who used to lead the alliance. The right hon. Gentleman must understand the implications of what I am saying, and I am sure that, on mature consideration, he will not wish to press me further.
The price of any commodity, including a company, must be determined by the market. I cannot conjure up an enhanced value for INMOS beyond what the market will bear. However, money is not the only measure of the return on the taxpayers' investment. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology said on 6 June, the Government must also bear in mind the future development of INMOS technology and the benefits thereof to the United Kingdom. I should not on this account rule out a foreign bidder. Foreign investment has much to offer the United Kingdom in terms of new technology. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and his friends are not adamantly opposed to investments made here, for example by IBM, although there is the risk of extra-territoriality and the buying of British brains by a foreign multinational.
The transfer of technology is a key part of INMOS strategy.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State said that money was not the only criterion in judging this matter. I was interested to note what Lord Cockfield said in the other place on 11 June in relation to the three criteria for the sale of INMOS:
The third is to secure a price which adequately reflects the taxpayers' past investment in the company."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 11 June 1984; Vol. 452, c. 884.]
Is the Secretary of State now withdrawing that statement?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is overstraining on this point. My right hon. and noble Friend said that there were three criteria, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned one. I, too, have said that price is only one criterion. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is getting into such a lather about.
Other projects in this area demonstrate that the United Kingdom is regarded as an attractive location for microelectronic projects. An excessive chauvinism, descending, as it sometimes does from the Opposition Benches, to outright xenophobia would do untold harm to employment and the creation of wealth in Britain. Nevertheless, I assure the House again that in considering any proposal for disposal, whether to a United Kingdom or a foreign bidder, the Government will bear very much in mind the technology spin-off effects for the United Kingdom.
I hope that both sides of the House share an awareness of the importance and pervasiveness of the new technologies. I hope that even the Opposition accept that the Government are strongly committed to bringing those new technologies into being, not just as museum pieces but as steps on the road to prosperity. We are determined that the market and the private sector should play their part, although we accept that on some occasions Government support is important. But technology is useless unless it creates wealth, so the market, above all, is important. All the schemes and incentives that we introduce to promote research and development are important, but it is essential above all to get those products on the market, and only the market and the private sector can do that effectively.
For those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Secretary of State has been his usual self—rude, arrogant and partisan. Can one imagine him as a general practitioner? He would kill more patients than he cured. The Secretary of State is living proof of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The Secretary of State always confuses issues. He tried to reprimand my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about his knowledge of the microchip industry, but my hon. Friend obviously knew far more than the Secretary of State, who tried to compare Ferranti with ICL. They operate in completely different areas. INMOS, which operates for mass production, is different from Ferranti, which is a specialist company. The Secretary of State gave the House a series of half-truths, which were all designed to cover up the central theme. Despite being asked repeatedly, the right hon. Gentleman would not give an assurance that he would not sell INMOS to a foreign bidder, whatever might be the consequences for British technology.
The Secretary of State also showed the pathological hatred felt by him and some of his hon. Friends about public ownership. They dislike any publicly owned company, however well it may do.
INMOS began by acquiring new technology in America—there was nowhere else to get it then—and in the past five or six years it has progressed so rapidly that it is recognised as one of the most advanced companies al its sector. However, despite the fact that we are now getting a return on the £100 million or more invested in the company, which is just beginning to make a profit, the Secretary of State intends to sell it, even though that may mean breaking it up and losing the transputer technology that is wanted by the rest of the world, especially by the Japanese. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that Bristol is a design centre and Newport has the manufacturing capacity, and


that ICL could not manufacture the transputer in Bristol. It needs the Newport factory. However, what will happen is that, with ICL's connections in Japan, the production will go there. The Secretary of State does not seem to be worried about that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting value for the taxpayer, but the present offer—he did not deny this—from the Americans is £58 million. That does not get back the £100 million that we invested.
In his highly partisan speech the Secretary of State did not say that there is a world shortage of microchips, and that they are being rationed. His proposals would place us firmly in the hands of the Americans and the Japanese. Is that what we want? He talked about the need to use microchips in industry, but if microchips are rationed, it must be sensible—even the Secretary of State can see this—to have an indigenous supply. From what he said today, he patently does not understand that. Nor is he worried about it. He is simply concerned about the market and about getting some cash back to Britain, whatever the consequences.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who is far more sane in these matters, asked what would happen if INMOS was sold to foreign sources, but, like the Opposition, he received no reply. The matter was clouded in secrecy. I should have liked a clear assurance that INMOS will not be sold to a foreign company, especially not to a company such as American Telephone and Telegraph, which has no intention of developing the technology.
The development of INMOS has been a remarkable success story. It started from scratch and dominated the world market in the 16K static RAM. It is producing the 64K dynamic RAM in volume capacity, and it is going on to the transputer, which, as the Secretary of State said, is a microprocessor on a small quarter-inch silicon chip. The important thing is that it is being designed in Bristol and would be manufactured in Newport.
The Secretary of State also failed to refer to the fact that, while manufacture started off in the United States at Colorado Springs, a labour force is being built up at Newport and the future of the new development will be more and more at Bristol and Newport rather than in the United States. That is the strength of the company. That is what it offers us for the future. There is hope for the future so long as the company remains in British hands.
The Secretary of State should have told us why he wants even to hive the company off to the private sector. Surely it would have made more sense, 75 per cent. of the equity being in public hands, for the taxpayer to reap the reward of the initial investment, which would not have been undertaken by the City or by the private sector. Having taken the risk, surely the taxpayer is entitled to reap the reward when profits are to be made. It would be bad business to begin to sell off a highly successful company at this time.
If we go out of the market in mass-produced chips, it will cost three times as much to get back in. Two of the South Korean companies that are trying to enter the same market will have to spend up to $500 million to get in. Is it not stupid even to contemplate selling INMOS at the moment?
One cannot rest easily when a bovver boy like the Secretary of State is responsible for administering new

technology and for British industry. In view of his delicate touch, one fears what will happen to the rest of British industry. One can only hope that wiser counsels will come from the Minister for Information Technology, who has prided himself on going about the country boasting of our achievements. I think he would recognise that, welcome though foreign investment is, the problem is that the research and development are not based in this country. We need an indigenous base.
The Secretary of State has said that we must not believe all we read. When we consider press speculation, I hope it is right that the Minister for Information Technology is resisting the sale of INMOS to the Americans. We may hear his opinion later. Perhaps he will either give us an assurance that this is what he is standing up for or, because his position would be jeopardised by what the Secretary of State has said, he might consider resigning, a very rare occurrence on the Government Benches. Usually Ministers are sacked by the Prime Minister.
Let us come to the Prime Minister, because I am told that when science and technology are talked about she claims to be the voice of science in the Cabinet. She even claims to be a scientist. When I examine her record, I find that she was a laboratory assistant washing vessels. That does not fill me with hope for the future.
Where is the pressure coming from? It is coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Luddite in the pinstriped suit who could not tell a computer from a commuter. All he is interested in is the pressure that is being put on him by City interests. He thinks that we must get money back as soon as possible. It is a very shortsighted outlook and it is in line with the narrow, blinkered outlook that the Cabinet has had since 1979. It relies on market forces.
If we had always relied on market forces, INMOS would not have been created, and Ferranti, which the Secretary of State has told us has a high volume of microchips, would not even have been here. It was rescued by the National Enterprise Board. If the Government say that INMOS must go, what about ICL? It would not have been here either if it had not been for the intervention of the NEB. I remind the Secretary of State that important successes occurred under the NEB.
I make a final appeal to the people of good reason, the more moderate and far-sighted Members on the Tory Benches. I hope that they will join us in the Lobby tonight in view of the fact that we have not had any assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that INMOS will not be sold off to a foreign buyer, whatever the consequences. I hope that those Tory Members who are more reasonable in their outlook will put the national interest and the future of high technology in this country before a narrow, partisan, political approach which says that we should sell off regardless of whom we sell to, foreign or otherwise, regardless of the national interest, and regardless of losing the sole company that is publicly owned and that is mass producing the microchip. This is the only company that could enable us to compete with the Japanese and the Americans.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I wish to declare an interest as a practitioner in information technology on both sides of the Atlantic.
In debates on science and technology in the House over the years one thing is certain—the terms of reference always tend to be the same. Indeed, we can say that over a period
we have not as a nation been able … fully to harness the resources of skill and ability we should be able to command. We have been falling steadily further behind our competitors … Successive Governments have striven to correct these deficiencies". Those are words that one could use today but, in fact, they are drawn from a document that is 10 years old, the White Paper on "The Regeneration of British Industry", published by the Labour Government in August 1974.
The problem is that over the 10 years since then—indeed, one could look back 10 years before that time—nothing has changed. Learning about how in politics we should try to progress in innovation and manage science and technology has not moved ahead nearly as fast as the process of technology itself. In a report that I was privileged to present to the House last week on behalf of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we drew attention to the fact that the problem of competitiveness has been with us throughout the centuries. It is not a decline that can be blamed on Governments of either party.
It is a decline that we have failed to notice. We have worked our way out of many of our traditional markets. Therefore, when we bring technology to this place, one of the problems is that we are looking upon this place as one of the few sources of funds of sufficient timeliness and volume to make it possible to fund high venture new types of technology such as electronics or genetic engineering.
One can trace the basic problem over the last 20 years to the steady decline in the rate of return which it has been possible to achieve on investment in manufacturing industry. We are now down to about one third of the rate of return that could have been 20 years ago. Because the return is so small—it is now running at below 4 per cent. per annum on average—there are many places where banks, private individuals and institutions of all kinds find it better to place their money on behalf of their clients. Because of this, the Government have found themselves very much in the forefront as an investor. The only other investors tend to be large conglomerates like ICL, GEC or Racal, which can generate the funds required to undertake the ventures.
The basic problem is not just that of money. Under successive Governments, we have to learn that we must express confidence in a target that is often on a horizon some five to 10 years ahead. That target means confidence in people and in leading edge technologies, such as that being practised by INMOS. The judgment has to be not just about money, but about whether the people involved in the leadership of that company are capable of getting to that target with a product in a timely fashion.
The problem has been thrown back to us in that Whitehall has never been a reservoir of entrepreneurs, and should not be required to be. It has had to take on that task, particularly in the past four years, without the tools to make the required assessments. We have asked Whitehall to make investment judgments and character judgments of individuals and teams wanting backing, and asked it to be able to travel across the long time span to win markets that are just glimmers in the eye of management. Therefore, that problem has become one of the hallmarks of most of the industrial endeavours in nationalisation.
If, 20 years ago, the late Frank Cousins and his advisers—at that time Frank Cousins was working under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—had not turned down but had understood what Mr. Drummer and his colleagues had brought out at the Government telecommunications research establishment at Malvern—the integrated circuit—we would now be the prime exporter of electronics in the world. In that category, I have a somewhat similar message on the transputer development of INMOS. Today, we are talking about the same kind of judgment. With that product and that team, is it worth continuing to back that company?
I have known lain Barron for 20 years, and I worked with him at one time. He has established a fiercely independent industrial capability. Professionally, lie is more than halfway to sound success, and his products, after tremendous problems at the beginning, are on time in terms of market, quality and price. The figures that we have heard today show that proper generation has started. It is true that professionally I can find some faults with the INMOS operation, but that is not unusual in the information technology industry, where there are many fierce jealousies. I can remember a case in the early days of INMOS, when one valiant company wanted to buy it to close down its production line. One should always look at bids and ask why they have been made and whether they are good for the company and its products.
Now is the time for confidence in INMOS, and I believe that in my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Information Technology we have established a creative and sensible vision of the position of Government and what they can do in practical terms to develop companies such as INMOS. There is a requirement on Government to sow the seeds of investment when others are fearful of stepping forward.
I appreciate that probably behind the scenes in the great secretiveness of British Government there is a great tussle going on between my right hon. Friends' Department and the Treasury. The Treasury looks upon INMOS in an entirely different way to that which I have been describing, which is the style presented by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The Treasury always needs cash and sees denationalisation as a cash generator and the sale of INMOS as a means of generating that cash. Courageously, the Treasury, on behalf of the taxpayer, never wants to see more public money invested in any form of national enterprise. However, both sides of the House must keep up their courage——

Dr. Jeremy Bray: With the experience that I know the hon. Gentleman has of the industry, and his detailed knowledge of INMOS, which is rather greater than that of most Conservative Members, would he agree that the worst solution would be to break the design capability within INMOS from its production capability?

Mr. Warren: I am just coming to that very point.
We must retain our courage to hold on to this company at this critical time, to see it through to the success that it can achieve. That is most important. One vital factor for a science/people-based company such as INMOS is that we should not leave its leadership with the uncertainty that is enveloping it now. That is bad. While the work force and management are worried about the future, they cannot be creating, and the creativity of that company is its major asset.
I come now to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). This company is ripe for technical plunder, in whole or in part. It is at the most critical part of its generation as a successful enterprise. Therefore, the terms and conditions of any sale at this stage—if the company is to be sold at this stage—must be that the control remains in the United Kingdom. There is no question about that, because otherwise we shall be throwing away all the tremendous investment that has been made in the company by the House on behalf of the taxpayers, and by qualified scientists and engineers who have devoted their time to the success of the company.
If INMOS is sold now or in the future, it must be sold at a price that reflects its worth. To be accurate, that company is worth £100 million—there is no question about that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can do the sums far more effectively than I.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to see me behind the Speaker's Chair immediately afterwards and put in his bid, backed by a suitable consortium.

Mr. Warren: My right hon. Friend is a dear friend of mine, and if he has not got information that the company is worth £100 million, he should change his advisers.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not discussing the price in public, but if my hon. Friend, has a clear view of the price, I am sure that he will be able to bring together, with his knowledge of the industry, a group of people who will make an all-British bid at the sort of price that will be compatible with what he says.

Mr. Warren: My right hon. Friend is skilled in these matters. I said that the control of the company should remain in the United Kingdom. That does not preclude outside investment in part, but the control must remain here. That company is worth £100 million, not only in terms of its current ability but in terms of its prospects. We must look to the future of companies in businesses such as this.
I end by commending to my right hon. Friend the words that I had already written before he intervened. He should not undersell our faith in our investment on behalf of the taxpayer.

Mr. Roy Hughes: This is a most worthwhile debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on his initiative in securing it. As for the Secretary of State, I thought that he was evasive and that he demeaned the high office that he unfortunately holds.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt agree that it is essential for the United Kingdom to keep up with developments in the important sector of information technology. It cannot be denied that the previous Labour Government made every possible effort to bring INMOS to this country. Huge sums of public money were invested in it before the headquarters and research centre were established at Bristol and the production unit was established in Newport.
When I met one of the founders, Mr. Petritz, some time ago, I got the impression that he was amazed at the amount of support that had been received from the Government

and the local authorities in Gwent. It was recognised from the start by the National Enterprise Board that this was a high risk venture but that the rewards could be substantial. United Kingdom expertise could be established in the key field of technology. It was reckoned that, by the mid-1980s, some 4,000 jobs could be established. That in turn would save about £20 million annually in imports and could generate £100 million in exports.
It is significant that when INMOS was up for grabs, no independent investor would put up the money. But now, one can see the carrion crows hovering, ready to swoop at any time—encouraged, of course, by the Government. The Minister for Information Technology confirmed in an answer on 6 June that the Government are ready to sell off this important public asset. The Government have made a fetish of selling off important public asset. Now the Government are apparently considering selling INMOS to American Telephone and Telegraph. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed that out in his original remarks, and he was not refuted by the Secretary of State.
The sum of £50 million—a derisory figure—has been speculated about in important financial journals. That is only half what the taxpayer has already put into this concern. In turn, it is suggested that there would be a deal for AT and T to transfer the design team at Bristol to ICL, the computer concern which, despite the remarks of the Secretary of State, was another business saved by the previous Labour Government. Yet the company has signed a wide-ranging agreement with the Japanese company, Fujitsu. Where, then, is the protection for British interests if INMOS is to be linked up in that way?
On the price, referred to by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), it is worth pointing out that an independent American consultant has valued the company at over £200 million. What the Government seem to be proposing is little short of criminal. Anxiety has already been expressed about American attempts to strangle the flow of high technology to Europe. Those attempts are really about commercial considerations, but they come under the guise of stopping goods with military application from reaching the Soviet bloc. The plan that is allegedly being proposed by the Government could severely hamper plans for Newport. Jobs there could be in peril after so much money has been spent in the town to bring the factory to fruition. The work force at Newport must realise that its future livelihood is at stake as a result of the Government's proposals. The Government are putting the jobs in jeopardy. The Government are merely espousing a doctrinaire attitude.
The selling off of so many of our public assets is in line with the Government's plans to cut regional aid. Together, those policies could cause havoc in south Wales, which has already suffered so many thousands of redundancies due to steel and other factory closures. There is a certain incompatibility between the jobs lost in coal and steel and the type of work provided by INMOS. INMOS is not likely to take on many of the redundant workers from those two important basic industries. Nevertheless, Britain must have the new techology if we are to have any future as an industrial nation. If the Government really wished to assist INMOS they would accept that it is extravagant to have factories in Newport and a headquarters and design centre in Bristol. That is illogical and inefficient. Why should not the whole enterprise be centralised at Newport? I say


categorically, in the interests of our nation and the work force whose future livelihood is at stake, that this enterprise should remain in public ownership.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The INMOS factory in Newport is in my constituency. I visited it only this week on Monday. I could not help but be impressed by the expansion and progress that has taken place over the past 12 months. That factory was completed in 1982 and it is no mean achievement that in 1983 it has realised sales amounting to £37·8 million. We have already heard the figures for the first quarter of this year. I understand that there is a possibility that at the end of 1984 profits may rise to over £10 million. If it is £12 million, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said earlier, projections have changed in the four days since I was at INMOS on Monday.
INMOS has become the largest semiconductor company in Britain with an annual turnover likely to be in excess of £100 million. It has also become a significant employer in my constituency. The number on site at present is over 700. By the end of this year, that figure is likely to have risen to over 1,000. There is every prospect that in 1985 that figure will rise still further.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) always talks about job losses, but in INMOS in Newport we are talking about job gains and the prospect of further job gains.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if INMOS is sold to a foreign bidder, the prospect of the increase in jobs in Newport will be severely curtailed?

Mr. Robinson: No, I would not agree. I shall say something about that later.
Judging from some recent comments, the suggestion that INMOS should move towards private ownership seems to be new. The contention of Opposition Members that the privatisation of INMOS is being foisted on the company is untrue.
I quote from the National Enterprise Board guidelines published in 1980 under "Disposals":
The board shall exercise their powers with a view to disposing to private ownership, as soon as commercially practicable, of all of their securities and other property and their subsidiaries' securities and other property.
It is, therefore, not new that INMOS is to be put to the private sector. What is more, in my view it is right that, once INMOS has become profitable, it should go into the private sector.
As INMOS moves towards maturity it is important that, in transferring it to the private sector, we get the transfer right. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology said in answer to a question that I put to him:
The BTG is actively exploring other options for the transfer of the company to the private sector."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 291.]
The House should note the words "other options". The House has heard Opposition proposals that sounded as though they were Government proposals based on speculation that has been mounted in the financial press. There is the possibility not only of options that may be on the table but also of options that may still be in the pipeline. This debate is not the time to leap to conclusions as to what will happen in the context of the future of INMOS.
It is fundamental that, in disposing of INMOS, two things must be protected. The first is the taxpayer's investment in the company, and the second is the continuing transfer of technology to the company and the gains in technology that have been made by the company. Of equal importance, as my right hon. Friend said on 6 June, is the question of access to technology by British companies. Whatever happens to INMOS, it is vital that it continue the role that it has started to play in high technology industry in the country.

Mr. Shore: Surely the essential role is the capacity to carry forward into new and developing technology. It is not a matter just of continuing a transfer from outside or of maintaining what we have; it is a question of having the creative base from which to advance further into the future unimpeded by whatever restraints may be put upon us by external influences. That must surely also be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Robinson: It is of course in my mind. It is important that we should be able to carry forward these advances. What I think the Minister was saying when he gave the reply to which I referred is that, in terms of a transfer of INMOS to the private sector, that very advancement must be protected. I believe that to be correct.
Since its inception, INMOS has been beset by doubters and sceptics who would not have given it any chance of reaching even its present levels of profitability. In 1983, it was ranked number one in Europe and number 11 in the world in the sales of large-scale integrated circuits. It has become a world leader in fast static RAMs and has a leading position in fast dynamic RAMs. It is also making an entry into the important future business of EEPROMs. I understand that the development of the INMOS transputer is also an important technical advance in microprocessors.
It has also been claimed that INMOS's early investment and employment opportunities were biased towards the United States. That may have been true, but it was because the necessary advance process technology was available only in that country. Since the establishment of the Newport plant, that technology has been transferred to the United Kingdom. Now that the transfer has taken place, it has been possible, with the help of research and development in Bristol, to achieve considerable design advances. Indeed, INMOS has succeeded in moving into a position where it is ahead of the world market.
There is high morale in the company and a great belief among the work force in its ability to perform. It would be tragic if INMOS were to suffer from prolonged uncertainty and speculation. At the same time, it is clearly necessary for the Government to explore carefully all the options available to them so that the potential that INMOS represents, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, will be developed not just to the full but to the maximum advantage of the country which has been responsible for its inception.
INMOS, with its dramatic architecture in Newport, is a visible example of the high technology industries that have come to south Wales. This debate takes in not just INMOS, but that new technology also.
At a time of industrial change and worldwide economic depression, the high technology industries offer considerable hope in the south Wales region. Many of my


constituents who work in INMOS came into the company with no knowledge of high technology industry. They have been trained into it, and they now have a permanent job in it. They have been effective and successful. That is important in terms of the Government's policy of creating new jobs in the region. There are other examples of that in the south Wales region, including Mitel, the new Comdial plant, and the major expansion at National Panasonic. Controlled Data is also carrying out a considerable expansion. New high technology industries have been established at Llantarnam and Cwmbran, and the importance that the Government attach to these enterprises in south Wales can be seen by the decision of the Welsh Development Agency to establish a special agency called WlNtech, which is expected to be fully operational by the autumn. But the purpose of that body is to stimulate the application of technological development by firms in Wales, and it is just another sign of the Government's commitment to the new technology industries.

Mr. Allen Adams: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, had it not been for the farsighted policies of past Labour Governments, the company that we are debating would not have existed, because it was public funds in the first instance that created the entity? What has he to say about public investment in the future against the background of public investment in the past which obviously created jobs, and we could go back to 1929 when Ramsey MacDonald bailed out——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the first Front Bench speaker will seek to catch my eye at 6.30 pm, and a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the point that the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) has raised.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) who said that most doctors could not have killed as many patients as my right hon. Friend has done. I would make the point that most doctors would not have inherited as many incurable patients as we have from the last Labour Government.
The developments amount not just to jobs in high technology industry. They are also important for the services industries on whose support the high technology companies rely. Thus, there are two sources of new jobs of equal importance.
There can be no doubt about the value of the high technology industries in terms of overseas markets, and it is important to be able to maintain competitiveness in this important sphere. INMOS is an example of that competitiveness. It was started as a commercial company and its decisions have been made on a commercial basis. It is only right that INMOS should be afforded a proper basis for its future development. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will come to a conclusion on the future of INMOS only after a most careful review of all the options available to him, including those that may not yet be on the table.
Whatever the final outcome, I have no doubt that the new technology industries in South Wales are there to stay. They have provided an important opening for the future

economic well-being of the region. INMOS has played a central and important part in that, and we must continue to allow it to do so.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) said that the Government should keep all the options open. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the house, although the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) expressed a different view. The one option which we must not keep open is that of allowing INMOS to pass to foreign hands. The hon. Member for Newport, West did not dismiss that as an option, nor did the Secretary of State. We could consider many other options, but that option must be written off. We hoped that the Minister would dispose of that fear adequately and unequivocally.
I shall not waste time talking about the need for new technologies. I pay tribute to the Minister for Information Technology because he and his Government have a greater recognition of the need to develop the new industrial revolution than previous Governments of any colour. I do not diminish the importance of previous Governments' perception of the need for new technology. They have done a great deal to bring the subject to the political forum. Unfortunately, we do not judge a Government by how important they believe an industry to be, but by how successful they are in doing something about it. The Minister and the Secretary of State have painted rosy and inaccurate pictures of how things are. Appropriate action springs from a correct perception of what needs to be done. The Government are working with blinkered vision.
The Secretary of State said that the NEDC pamphlet handed out some bouquets to the Government. I can see only one paragraph that is complimentary to the Government. It says some reasonable things, but the remainder of the document illustrates how our high technology industry is moving into crisis and explains how Government action has not been sufficient to cope with the problem.
The document presents a picture wholly different from that which the Government present. Our balance of trade has plummeted from a deficit of £89 million to £200 million in only three years. Imports have gone up from 41 per cent. to 54 per cent. Our high technology industry has grown at half the rate of that in the United States.
Paragraph 7 of the pamphlet states:
Information technology industries of our main industrial competitors have grown much more rapidly than that of the UK.
Is that supposed to be congratulatory of the Government? Paragraph 12 of the pamphlet states:
Furthermore, every one of our industrial competitors gives higher levels of support to this industry.
Is that supposed to be congratulatory? The pamphlet goes on:
The UK is coming to depend far too heavily on imported technology.
Even some of our own programmes are being used to support programmes abroad. How much of the Micros in Schools programme has been passed to foreign companies instead of local companies?
The pamphlet states that NEDC is
most concerned about an impending crisis in the information technology industry.
That is a far cry from the Secretary of State's attempt to convince us that all is well and that the Government have done a great deal for the information technology industry.
It is against a background of continuous decline, which cannot be blamed entirely on this Government, that we must examine the INMOS decision. I shall not go into the details of INMOS, but three factors make INMOS especially noteworthy. The first is the transputer, which takes 10 million instructions per second. It is 20 times faster than the current micros and between three and five times faster than the current 32-bit machines. That makes it worth preserving in British hands and writes off what the hon. Member for Newport, West said was an option. The CMOS production technique is not a matter for rejoicing. That technique, in which we are world leaders by two years, has been sold to the Japanese instead of being exploited in the United Kingdom.
INMOS provides the only chance to compete in the silicon systems of the future, as it becomes possible to integrate upwards of 1 million devices on to a chip. It will be necessary to fabricate complete systems on to silicon rather than make such systems from discrete components. Since most systems will consist primarily of memory and processing the business needs precisely the capabilities developed by INMOS in terms of designs, CAD and the Occam design language.
We must judge what the Government seek to do against that background. The Government do not deny that the new systems are essential, or that they have enormous potential. The Government do not deny that INMOS is moving into profit and that it is returning the investment that we courageously made in it, yet they have decided to take the risk of selling off INMOS and breaking up the design teams which are so essential to lay a strategic base for our future.
Never before has the rule of narrow party dogma so swamped the dictates of ordinary common-sense. What is worse, the Government seem to want to sell the company off at less than its value. The Minister for Information Technology did not mention price on 6 June. I was delighted to receive his assurances on that. I have with me a wonderful book called
I have no gun, but I can spit".
It is a collection of poems put together by the Minister. I direct attention to the poem by Jonathan Swift, which is a favourite of his called "On Irish Members of Parliament". The first two lines read:
Let them when they once get in
Sell the nation for a pin.
We are worried that the Government will be tempted, for short-term reasons, to
sell the nation for a pin.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for drawing attention to my anthology of poetry. I remind the House that it is still available at £2·95 from the best bookshops.

Mr. Ashdown: That comment requires no response.
The Government have opened up the possibility that INMOS could go to a foreign owner. That could be AT and T. I recognise the Government's delicate position and that the Minister is unable to make as many clear statements as he might wish, but that possibility has not been denied. We have received no assurances.
Britain is already in danger of becoming a technological satellite to the United States. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the extra-territoriality exercised by the United States

Government. We might be passing this vital component of the strategy of our new base for high technology to American hands, to a firm which is 20 times larger than Plessey and which is already negotiating for Olivetti in Europe, to make it one of the most powerful information technology forces in Europe. If we accept AT and T's invitation to purchase INMOS it will be the most foolish and dangerous invitation ever accepted since Red Riding Hood agreed to have tea with the wolf.
I hope that the Government will dismiss the invitation categorically. I am disturbed, worried and concerned—as Conservative Members should be—that the Government have not yet been prepared to say categorically that control of INMOS will not pass outside the United Kingdom.
I wish to conclude by quoting again from the NECD report. Paragraph 24.6 states that a European market
as a base from which to enter international markets, holds much more promise than any of the individual national markets in Europe … the EDC believes that information technology creates the best opportunity that the UK has of achieving economic revitalisation. We welcome the very significant measures taken by the government to stimulate the IT industry and the IT applications. These have put the UK firmly in the starting blocks. Unfortunately, in the race that follows there are stronger runners than ourselves and we are falling behind. The EDC, therefore, asks for the forging of a new partnership between government and industry.
It will do terrible damage to the so necessary new partnership if the right hon. Gentleman now risks not only breaking up the design teams that have run INMOS and made it so successful, but possibly allowing INMOS to pass into hands other than British, so that they will reap the benefit of the skill and courage that have made INMOS such a success.

Mr. Rob Hayward: We have listened to many references to questions asked during Question 'Time on 6 June. I am astounded that there have been so many interpretations of the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. I found his answers as clear as anyone could have expected, given the detailed, complex and confidential negotiations taking place.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that my right hon. Friend had made no reference to INMOS being sold for a reasonable price. Yet on 6 June my right hon. Friend said:
bearing in mind not only the price that is offered."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 292.]
Surely that is a reference to a reasonable price. On 17 February the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I took part in a debate on new technology, when I said that a reasonable price had to be paid for INMOS, to whomsoever it was sold.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to price and also made passing reference to liabilities, as though they did not matter. As I understand the position—and I am willing to be corrected—the liabilities amount to about £120 million. So we are talking not only of the purchase price, but about liabilities and long-term commitments. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was likely to be a £70 million commitment to the United Kingdom, and dismissed it as though it was nothing. He suggested that if INMOS was sold to AT and T, it would pick it up for a pittance and then asset-strip. He should appreciate that a substantial


sum of money is involved if we take into account the purchase price, the liabilities and the long-term commitments. It is hardly likely that a company will buy INMOS and then asset-strip. Any company may want to redirect its product lines and commitments from one place to another. That applies to the majority of multinationals, whether they be British, American, German or any other.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) pleaded for certainty. He then, in passing, threw in the suggestion that we might close the design centre at Bristol and move it to Newport. Surely he is throwing in additional uncertainty. I admire any potential bidder, whether British, American or Dutch, who succeeds in making a bid. So many people appear to have a vested interest—the management, the initial shareholders, the Government, and the British Technology Group—that it must be difficult for potential bidders to know to whom they must bid and understand whether they are getting a reasoned response.
There has been speculation about the position of ICL. It is said that it will definitely have the transputer operation and will definitely send it to Fujitsu. Why should that happen? I understand that Fujitsu is the last name linked in the national press with ICL. Opposition Members appear to have forgotten that ICL has links with five other international companies. Why should not the transputer operation go to one of them? There is no logic for saying that it will go to Fujitsu rather than one of the other companies.
The long-term interests of INMOS are based on the parameters to the bid set out by my right hon. Friend in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). My right hon. Friend not only identified price, he referred to the
continuing access to the technology by British industry, the need for a continuing transfer of technology to Britain, and a commitment to the development and expansion of activity in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 292.]
I would want to see the involvement of INMOS being as strongly directed towards and allied to British industry as possible. But, as has been said on a number of occasions, that judgment can be made only when all the bids are available to BTG, INMOS and the Government. It is only at that point that it would be reasonable for any Minister, in any Government, to rule out any option.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I visited Newport and spent some hours as the guest of INMOS. It is an extremely interesting operation. First, can the Minister elaborate on what the Secretary of State referred to as the technology spin-off for the United Kingdom from the Government's proposals? Secondly, what is to be the future of the transputer operation in relation to the British national interest? Thirdly, on the electronically erasable memory, which is basically British work that we should not see go abroad, what is the Government's attitude towards protecting the work done in this country?
Fourthly, I was impressed by the link with the Wolfson Foundation Research in Edinburgh. Given that British universities have had a great deal of public money on related subjects, is there not a national interest to be protected? Fifthly, the INMOS system apparently is to be evaluated by the Alvey directorate. The Minister knows

that it is a joint Government, industry and academic exercise. Precisely what will the Alvey directorate do in this position?
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) is desperate to speak, and I shall give way to him as he knows a great deal about the subject.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me to speak now.
We have witnessed from the Secretary of State one of the most disgraceful speeches of which even he is capable. What it lacked in content he made up for in bile. It was a typical knee-jerk response to a sensible contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It will not do for the Secretary of State to come to the House and disguise his lack of knowledge with the sort of thuggery that he produced at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. It does the House no good at all in such a serious debate.
The Minister may recall that, in the debate on 17 February, I drew attention to, and put firmly on the record in more detail than time will allow me tonight, the Opposition's view of the serious threat of the competitive forces that are currently at work in the United Kingdom. In replying to that debate, the Minister, in his usual flamboyant and ambassadorial role as the saviour of the British IT industry, assured us that all was well and that the industry was safe in his hands. If the industry is safe in his hands and those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I would not put either of them in the slips.
What is happening in these sunrise industries today is extremely worrying. Reference has been made to the report of the NEDC and the remarks of its chairman. That document said that concern had been expressed
that the industry is close to a threshold below which an independent, broad-based United Kingdom information technology industry would no longer be viable.
It went on to note
that the United Kingdom has many strengths in the industry to build on.
I acknowledge that to be a fact, but it added:
However, international competition is intense, and overseas competitors are also supported by their national governments.
One need only look at recent press announcements to see that the Governments of other countries are supporting their indigenous industries to a considerable degree—including the French, German, Japanese and American Governments—albeit through rather circuitous routes. If one contrasts what they are doing in support of their industries with what we are doing, no wonder we are in our present state of demise.
What has been the Minister's response to this situation of crisis, if we are to believe the words of Professor Ashworth? First, the Government introduced a package of support under MISP 2, but the level of that support was lamentable and misdirected. Secondly, for months the Government have been creating chaos and uncertainty about the future of INMOS. After all, INMOS is the flagship of the British microprocessing industry. I shall address my remarks to the first before dealing with the second.
The right hon. Gentleman—Mr. Sunrise—has invented a new word to describe the Government's support for the IT industry. He calls it catalytic. I have another word for it. I call it catastrophic. The Minister assumes


that the injection of £102 million of Government money will generate five times that amount from the private sector, inspiring British industry to commit £1 billion from its own resources over the next decade to the microelectronic sector.
If we are to believe that a £1 billion investment—that is the sum the Government estimate must be spent by British industry to stem the rising tide of imports and to put us on a par with our American and Japanese competitors—is necessary, it is clear that it will not be forthcoming as the result of the injection of a miserly £120 million. The reasoning—the magic catalytic formula—is not convincing, and I am not alone in that view.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Stott: I do not have time to give way.
Another anomaly is that not all the companies that might benefit from the second Micros in Schools programme are British. As the Minister knows, there is a plethora of American and Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom which would benefit from these provisions, and they would be entitled to apply for grant. The Government have confirmed that to be the case in written answers to me. If those companies were to receive that money, there would be no award conditions placed on it to ensure that the results of developments were used only in British products or that British manufacturers would have priority of supply.
The Government have already showered on these multinational companies a good deal of taxpayers' money. Grants under MISP 2 could, in my view, encourage these multinational companies to conduct their research and development in Britain and not use their British manufacturing bases as the assembly shops for the products forthcoming from that research and development. Thus, although funded by the Government's MISP 2, they could be manufactured abroad.
That is why the catalytic support for large British companies and high technology multinationals is a nonsense. The funding should be reserved for small United Kingdom-owned companies and those with obvious need for financial support. The support that is made available, and the benefits that flow from it, should become the property of the British information technology industry and not the industry of another country, but regrettably what we want to see in that respect is not happening.
I welcome inward investment. It creates jobs, no matter how few. But if the object of MISP 2 and other programmes is to stimulate and encourage British research activity that would not otherwise be funded, and to prevent the Britsh IT industry from dropping below the threshold of viability, the Government's current philosophy and policies must be reviewed as a matter of urgency, before the sun sets on the sunrise industries.
I well remember, when I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Eric Varley at the Department of Industry, the birth of INMOS and the excitement that that created. The potentially brilliant child had to be brought into the world with the care, attention and support of the state as its midwife. With their usual display of patriotic foresightedness, the City institutions would not touch it. It was left, instead, to the National Enterprise Board to use public funds to support and develop the potential of INMOS, and that we did. We did it among a chorus of carping criticism——

Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stott: —from Conservative Members who were to become the present Prime Minister, Secretary of State of Education and Science and Secretary for State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Budgen: Quite right, too.

Mr. Stott: I have a long memory when it comes to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I remember him sitting below the Gangway of the Opposition Benches snarling like some demented wart-hog every time public money was used to support INMOS.
The farsightedness of the people who founded INMOS, the commitment of Sir Leslie Murphy at the NEB and the support of the then Labour Government ensured the survival of INMOS, and how right we were. INMOS is now operating on the leading edge of semiconductor technology. The company has an excellent reputation throughout the world. The development of the transputer is a world first and the company made a £1·26 million pretax profit in the first quarter of the last financial year.
It is absurd—indeed, downright stupid—to allow a company such as INMOS to be dogged by doubts not only about its future ownership but about whether any change to its ownership would lead to the dismemberment of the company and the abandonment of the vital long-term strategy that it needs for survival. If the comments in the technical and serious press are to be believed, the Government do not have a friend at court as a result of their handling of this sensitive affair.
Let me drag the Minister's mind back once more to the debate in February when I warned him of the consequences if the Government started to mess about with INMOS. I warned him also of what the Opposition's attitude would be to the proposed sale of INMOS. I am gratified that so much informed expert opinion is now on our side.
An internecine war has been going on between the Treasury, which wants a quick sale at a ludricrously low figure to swell its coffers, the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, who take a marginally more balanced view of what is in the best interests of Britain, and the third party, the directors of INMOS, who according to recent press reports are fighting a rearguard action against the combined forces of Whitehall to retain and control the company in its present form and prevent it from being broken up.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in his devastating critique of the way in which the Government have handled this sorry affair, outlined the sensible options that the Government could take to safeguard the national interest and the longterm interests of INMOS. I must emphasis that any attempt to take over INMOS by AT and T will be strenuously resisted by the Opposition. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said in February when I drew his attention to an article that appeared in The Economist, in which one of his advisers, who happens to be an expert on semiconductors, stated:
I really cannot see that AT&amp;T is a hot prospect. AT&amp;T has a long hit list in Europe, and [limos is just one company on the list. Clearly AT&amp;T doesn't want Inmos's technology, it's got plenty of its own. Its only reason for wanting Inmos is to be able to put 'local' components into its products for the European market.
I concur with that view. That is what would happen if AT and T were a successful bidder for the business
The INMOS affair exposes a serious weakness in the Government's industrial strategy. It shows that there is a lack of any practical commitment to the IT industries wherever they may exist. We have once again witnessed the Conservatives' manic distaste for public ownership, irrespective of the damage that that approach can do to a vital national asset. The Government should stop playing Russian roulette with INMOS. They should do what all sensible opinion has been counselling them to do over the months that the general debate has been taking place. They should do what we propose they should do in our motion. We propose that Her Majesty's Government should
ensure the continued rapid development of Inmos and its products and to maintain it as an independent company under majority United Kingdom ownership and control.
We have not had a commitment from the Secretary of State. All that we have had is a bland, ridiculous and stupid response, which is typical of the right hon. Gentleman's contributions of late. Anything less than what we have asked for in the motion will be a betrayal of INMOS. Anything less will be a betrayal of the national interest. It is time that the Government started at least to think about the value of the national interest.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): When I heard last week that the Opposition were to use one of their precious supply days and to issue a three-line Whip to condemn the Government's information technology programme and our policy towards INMOS, I confess that I was puzzled. A range of information technology programmes have been introduced since I have held responsibility for this portfolio over the past three and a half years. The Government have put in place a series of initiatives on information technology to ensure that Britain does not lose the technological race. As these initiatives have been announced over the past three and a half years—for example, the micros in schools scheme, the network of information technology centres, the largest programme of civilian research since the war, the Alvey programme, the programme of support to encourage older industries to use new technologies——

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Baker: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I have the scintilla of a feeling that I know the issue that he wishes to raise. If I may say so, he put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and since then he has rarely been in the Chamber. I hope that he will forgive me if I ask him to accept that I know the point that he wishes to make. Many of the programmes that we have introduced in the high technology area have helped companies in the constituency of my hon. Friend. High technology does not involve only microchips. It involves the use of new technologies by older industries.
The Opposition have chosen to impose a three-line Whip to attack the Government's range of policies. I thought that I would be subjected to a devastating critique, but that has not occurred. As I have listened to Labour Members I have had the sensation of being bombarded with cotton wool balls. Over the past three and a half years, the Opposition have subjected my proposals and the

Government's programmes to silent approval. After three and a half years of that approval we now have three hours of denunciation.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have directed attention to a report from the information technology committee of Neddy. The report was made available to the Financial Times and The Guardian this morning as a secret document by the Social Democratic party. In fact, it has been a public document since 6 June. It is adding a new excitement to Whitehall now that the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party is leaking documents that have been in the public domain for the better part of 10 days.
The document is an excellent report but it is partially incomplete. I attended the Neddy meeting when it was discussed. If the hon. Member for Yeovil reads the notes to the first two annexes to the statistics he will note the following:
statistics in this industry are partially incomplete".
It is suggested that the reader cannot obtain a clear overall picture. It is an unhelpful picture because the statistics in the second annex omit the software industry, which is one of the great jewels in our crown. We estimate that the output of that industry is between £1·5 billion and £2 billion a year. That information is not to be found in the second annex, which sets out international comparisons. The first annex neglects to refer to the contributions of all the service industries and the applications of technologies. The report focuses on the hardware sector.
I do not want to be complacent or to give the impression that Britain's position in these technologies is stronger than it is. There are areas where we have a world lead and there are other areas where we are missing out on major markets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and others have said, it is no good expecting only the new technology industries—INMOS, the microchip companies and the integrated circuit companies—to provide the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector that are being displaced in traditional industries. I accept that.
The new technologies will provide two types of job. They will create jobs in the new technological industries on a relatively modest scale. As technologies change from electro-mechanical to electronic, fewer employees will be required. Even the new high technology industries will not be insulated from that trend.
What is much more important is the position of the traditional industries of Britain—what economists call the smokestack industries. If heavy and light engineering companies, textile companies, paper-making companies and processing companies do not use the new technology, they will not be in business in five years' time. I hope that that is one of the messages that the House will send out to industry today. That is why we have provided support to enable medium-sized and small companies to introduce flexible manufacturing, computer-assisted design, robots and robotic devices. If such companies do not avail themselves of those technologies, they will not be competitive. They will go out of business, and unemployment will increase even further.

Mr. Shore: I agree that we should think about the application of new systems to traditional industries. But it is clear that the Minister is about to put this topic to one side. Before he does so, will he tell me whether he is


saying that because Professor Ashworth, the chairman of the information technology Neddy did not know that software statistics were included in the appendix to the paper that he presented, all his judgments—including the conviction that on present trends the United Kingdom will not have an independent broad-based information technology industry by the end of the decade—are invalidated and wrong?

Mr. Baker: Professor Ashworth was concentrating upon hardware. Hardware is now responsible for only about 50 per cent. of the cost of any system, as hon. Members will know from their experience of buying word processors or other equipment for their secretarial services. The cost of the software is an integral part of all systems.
The report was selective and partial. However, I would not wish to dismiss it. It contained much that was useful. For example, it reminded us that we do not have much of an office equipment industry in this country. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dayell) asked me about the technological spin-off from the transputer and the chips. The reason why it is important that Britain should have a chip-making capability is that the manufacturers of electronic equipment must have access to those chips at an early stage. If they do not have access to them, other countries will step in first.
Most of the trade deficit arises in the office equipment field.

Mr. Budgen: What about INMOS?

Mr. Baker: There is no chance that I will forget INMOS, but the point that I am currently making—

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Baker: I would give way to an hon. Member who had spoken in the debate, but not to my hon. Friend, who has been present only at the beginning and the end of the debate.
There are deficiencies in the British office equipment industry. That is why we have promoted the development of the small microcomputer companies Acorn and Apricot, that is why we saved ICL in 1981—ICL has become the most successful mainframe computer company in Europe—and that is why we have encouraged the development in the United Kingdom of word processing companies. We do not want to import all that electronic equipment.
Where does Britain stand in relation to France, Germany and our European partners with regard to high technology? In 1983 our usage and consumption of microchips exceeded that of Germany. That was an exceptional achievement, because the German economy is stronger and larger than ours. In that year we consumed about 29 per cent. of all the integrated circuits and microchips used in Europe. Our share had risen from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent., while that of Germany had fallen from 32 per cent. to 26 per cent. More electronic equipment is being designed, developed and made here than in any other European country. We have the fastest-growing electronic industry in Europe.
One of the reasons why we are in that position is that we have taken certain initiatives. For example, there is the case of Acorn and the BBC micro. That programme has been triumphantly successful. We introduced it for social reasons. We wanted children leaving school at the age of 16 or 18 to be able to communicate with the new

technologies. One of the spin-offs of that socially motivated plan was that we were able to give considerable stimulation to that company through public purchasing. It has now become established as the main world supplier of educational computers. There is a possibility that the computer will be adopted by the Indian education system as the basic computer for use throughout India. That is a real triumph and an enormous business opportunity.
We are making progress., not only in computers but in educational software. Teaching programmes are row written in England, principally at Newcastle polytechnic and by a private company in Birmingham. We should be proud of that. In the 19th century we exported textbooks throughout the world—Macmillan, Longman, Heinemann-Durrell's algebra and Kennedy's latin primer.

Dr. Bray: That was in the 19th century.

Mr. Baker: And in the 20th century. The textbooks of today and tomorrow will be the software programmes, and we have a world lead in that technology. In order to maintain our position and to increase and expand our role, we must have the basic technologies in this country.

Mr. Sayeed: In the four or five minutes that are left, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that we shall not, through the sale of INMOS, lose to overseas countries the intellectual property and the technical expertise that have been built up in that company?

Mr. Baker: I am about to deal with the importance of INMOS and of the microchip industry.
We should not think of microchips in isolation. There is a whole series of interlocking technologies, and it is just as important for us to have a world lead in fibre optics as in some semiconductor technology. It is quite wrong to believe that INMOS alone represents the main part of the British microchip industry. The fastest growing semiconductor company in the world is based in Manchester. it is Ferranti.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: I must resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend, because I am about to deal with microchips.
INMOS is not alone. There are nine factories in Britain making semiconductors and integrated circuits. Ferranti is the fastest-growing electronics company in the world. I can give another example from a multinational company. The Opposition are hostile to multinational companies, but in Southampton there is a company called Mullards, which is a subsidiary of the multinational company Philips. That company manufactures in Southampton and designs its own chips in south London. It has complete independence from the mother company. It has a world lead in a specialised field—that of teletext and viewdata chips. That company is enabling us to maintain a world lead in teletext and viewdata technology.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman comes from Scotand. He should be grateful for the investment in chip technology in Scotland. More people in Scotlnd are now employed in the high technologies than in traditional industries such as engineering and shipbuilding.
I wish to say something about INMOS but my task is made difficult by all the interventions. I agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


for Trade and Industry, who recognised that it was right to establish INMOS. Since 1978, there has been a change. In 1978 there was a dearth of risk capital available for any technological investment in Britain. Larger companies were guilty of sins of omission. They did not invest. The City was not interested, and the private investor was ignorant. The position has now been totally transformed. Plenty of private capital is available for investment in high technology. That is why we believe that the future capital requirements of INMOS should be met from the private sector. That is not what the Opposition want.

Mr. Shore: rose——

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I am about to deal with the criteria that will be used in the various options and possibilities that we are actively pursuing. We shall be concerned with jobs at Newport, a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), and with the technology spin-off, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We shall also be concerned about the continuing technology transfer. The House would expect us to be concerned about the price. We have heard the ludicrous suggestion that the Treasury want us to sell cheaply. No Treasury ever wants anyone to do that. I assure the House that we shall protect British interests in the deal on INMOS and that we shall protect technological interests.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 248.

Division No. 377]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Dixon, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Guy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Anthony
Ellis, Raymond


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cartwright, John
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clarke, Thomas
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clay, Robert
Freud, Clement


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Godman, Dr Norman


Cohen, Harry
Golding, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gould, Bryan


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Craigen, J. M.
Hancock, M.


Crowther, Stan
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cunningham, Dr John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Dalyell, Tam
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith





Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Park, George


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pavitt, Laurie


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Penhaligon, David


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Douglas
Prescott, John


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Loyden, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stott, Roger


McTaggart, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tinn, James


Martin, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wareing, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Michie, William
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.


O'Neill, Martin



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dykes, Hugh


Beggs, Roy
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fletcher, Alexander


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Galley, Roy


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Chope, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clegg, Sir Walter
Goodlad, Alastair


Colvin, Michael
Gow, Ian


Conway, Derek
Greenway, Harry


Coombs, Simon
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Lyell, Nicholas


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Grylls, Michael
McCusker, Harold


Gummer, John Selwyn
Macfarlane, Neil


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maclean, David John


Hampson, Dr Keith
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hanley, Jeremy
Madel, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maginnis, Ken


Harris, David
Major, John


Harvey, Robert
Malins, Humfrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Malone, Gerald


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Marland, Paul


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Marlow, Antony


Hawksley, Warren
Mates, Michael


Hayes, J.
Mather, Carol


Hayward, Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Henderson, Barry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mellor, David


Hind, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Hirst, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Holt, Richard
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Moate, Roger


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Moore, John


Hunter, Andrew
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Moynihan, Hon C.


Irving, Charles
Murphy, Christopher


Jackson, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Needham, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Nelson, Anthony


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Newton, Tony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nicholson, J.


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Normanton, Tom


Key, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


King, Rt Hon Tom
Oppenheim, Philip


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Knowles, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lamont, Norman
Parris, Matthew


Latham, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lawrence, Ivan
Pawsey, James


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Porter, Barry


Lee, John (Pendle)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Powley, John


Lightbown, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lilley, Peter
Price, Sir David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Prior, Rt Hon James





Proctor, K. Harvey
Sumberg, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Tim
Terlezki, Stefan


Rhodes James, Robert
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald (Caldar V)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Silvester, Fred
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, lvor
Woodcock, Michael


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of the United Kingdom establishing a strong position in world information technology markets; welcomes the substantial contribution made by the information technology programme of Her Majesty's Government to the international success of the industry; and supports the objective of Her Majesty's Government, of transferring Inmos to private ownership.'.

Piece Hall, Halifax (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

.13 pm

Mr. Roy Galley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a modest measure seeking a slight variation in Sunday trading laws in a unique building in the town of Halifax. The Bill, which is promoted by the Calderdale metropolitan borough council, is intended to make lawful certain types of trading on a number of Sundays in the year in a building of great significance in the history of Halifax, the Piece hall.
It is not the council's intention in promoting the Bill simply to create in Halifax a trading centre that will be characteristic of any other trading centre elsewhere. The purpose is rather to enhance the attraction of a special, even unique, building, which is a tourist feature of the area, in which Sunday trading is seen not as an end in itself but as a means of attracting people to the building in which that trading takes place. So unique is the building that, in the opinion of the Civic Trust, there is only one other market hall in this country that is comparable in scale and design, and that is Covent garden. In passing the Bill, the House would not be setting a precedent applicable to other buildings in this country.
The Bill, for the metropolitan borough council, is an important step in its policy of developing tourism in the area, which contains Halifax, several surrounding towns and rural areas. Some important environmental works have been undertaken to enhance the tourist prospects in the district. The council has designated not only Piece hall, but the towns of Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge and Todmorden as holiday resorts as part of that strategy, and they are working together in a co-operative effort to boost the economy and to develop the tourist centres of the area.
Halifax has several fine buildings worthy of preservation, as well as several buildings of the Georgian era—the same period as the Piece hall. It has a superb Victorian town centre, the jewel of which is the town hall. It was the last work of Sir Charles Barry. Indeed, it has been claimed that Barry's work in the House was but a preparation for the building of Halifax town hall.
There are also model villages, built by Victorian industrialists and philanthropists, and many fine churches as well as an extensive industrial heritage. A commentator, in 1980, said that, more than any other town in England, Halifax illustrates vividly the continuity of industrial history from the early heyday of the domestic cloth trade through the age of technological innovation to the present day, and that visually, Halifax is one of our most impressive towns. It is upon that important aspect of the heritage of Halifax that the Bill largely rests.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does my hon. Friend have any assessment, should the Bill be passed, of the amount of trading, if any, that would be taken from surrounding towns, cities and villages on the basis that they would not be permitted Sunday trading?

Mr. Galley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal with that point as I develop my speech. He may wish to intervene later.
The Piece hall is the principal tourist feature of the area. It is unique in construction and worthy of promotion in its

own right. It is one of the most outstanding 18th century buildings of its kind, and the primary attraction of the district. In the competitive world of national and international tourism, the borough council feels bound to do all that it can to make this major attraction the best possible means of producing income for the local and national economy. The promotion of Piece hall is considered to be of benefit not just to Halifax, but to the surrounding Pennine area and the rest of west Yorkshire.
Visitors who are attracted into the hall will find there information about the surrounding area. To some extent, that covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). People will be attracted to travel to the surrounding areas from the Piece hall, which is the centre of tourist information for the district. The object is to make the hall a magnet attracting people to a much wider area.
The council's efforts in promoting Piece hall as a local amenity and tourist centre have already been recognised by the achievement, since 1976, of four major national awards, including those from the Civic Trust and the British Tourist Authority.
The council attaches great importance to the promotion of tourism in Calderdale in common with other attractive areas of Yorkshire and the north in the face of a decline in the traditional industries upon which our prosperity was based at the end of the 19th century and the early part of this century. Since 1974, the council has become acutely aware of the economic vulnerability of Halifax during a period of rapid economic change. The economy was based very much upon machine tools, textiles, particularly carpets, and the food and drink industry. Many of those firms have suffered a decline in recent years.
The census of employment taken in 1978 illustrates the imbalance of the local job structure and forms much of the basis of the council's concern to develop new ideas for the local economy. In 1978, 51 per cent. of employees in Halifax worked in the manufacturing sector compared with a national average of about 30 per cent., 8 per cent. of the work force was engaged in the textile industry compared with 2 per cent. nationally, 9 per cent. was in mechanical engineering compared with 4 per cent. nationally, and 15 per cent. was in the food and drinks manufacturing sector compared with only 3 per cent. nationally. In 1978, only 49 per cent. of the Halifax work force was engaged in the service sector, compared with 65 per cent. nationally. There has thus been a serious reduction in the number of jobs, especially in the late 1970s. A large number of jobs have been lost in the sectors that I have mentioned, including 38 per cent. of the jobs in mechanical engineering and 30 per cent. of those in textiles.
Although there was a 4 per cent. decline in population between the censuses of 1971 and 1981, by May 1984 unemployment in Halifax was 11·5 per cent. That is slightly below the national average, but the increase in unemployment has been markedly greater in recent years.
Against that background, the borough council is pursuing a wide range of initiatives to diversify local employment opportunities, including the development of tourism which is an important part of the economic strategy. A strategy has been developed to enhance the many tourist aspects of Halifax and surrounding districts in an endeavour to conserve and improve the outstanding architectural heritage of the area. Projects are currently


being funded by the National Trust, which is especially interested in the development of Halifax as a tourist and conservation area.
The Piece hall itself was constructed in the late 1770s around an open rectangular courtyard with colonnaded buildings consisting of 315 rooms in which lengths of finished woollen cloth were offered for sale by weavers to merchants who then sold them in other parts of the country. As the industrial revolution developed, the importance of the Piece hall declined somewhat, but it is directly related to the textile trade which formed the basis of the city's prosperity. Although the building subsequently became somewhat dilapidated, in 1928 it was listed as an ancient monument and in 1972 it was listed as a grade 1 building of historical and architectural interest. In the past 10 years, it has been renovated to a very good standard at a current cost of between £3 million and £4 million, and it has become very much the recreational centre of Halifax. For example, it is the centre for band concerts. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the importance of brass bands to the culture of west Yorkshire.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Before continuing his interesting guided tour of the Piece hall in Halifax, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill is in no way an attempt to drive a coach and horses through the Sunday trading laws, but merely a sensible, modest and reasonable attempt to provide a few jobs and to sort out some of the mish-mash of uncertainty in the Sunday trading laws?

Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Bill is about the Piece hall, the creation of jobs in Calderdale and west Yorkshire and the preservation of our local heritage. The Sunday trading aspects are incidental, but they will be extremely helpful in developing the heritage of the area.
Under section 51 of the Shops Act, Sunday trading is possible in the Piece hall on 18 Sundays per year when shops and stores may sell the types of goods set out in the relevant schedules. It is important to note that the Piece hall market is intended not as a means of satisfying everyday shopping needs, but as a setting to which people can resort predominantly for recreational purposes.
Initially, a Sunday market of this kind proved a considerable economic success, but over the years its impact has dwindled and it is now too small to justify many shops being open. The potential of the present restricted market has thus not been achieved and it has not proved a sufficient attraction to draw to the hall the number of visitors that local people and the local council would be justified in expecting, given the historical and architectural importance of the building. The council believes that it would be helpful if the scope of the market were widened. That is why it has promoted the Bill.
It is important to appreciate that the Bill will not allow Sunday trading without restriction or on every Sunday of the year. There are two specific restrictions. First, the number of Sundays must not exceed 18 in any one year, which is in line with the provisions of the Shops Act. Secondly, the Bill imposes a duty on the council to ensure that sales authorised under clause 3 would be predominantly such as to maintain the special and distinctive character of the Piece hall as a traditional textile centre and thus an important link in the unfolding history of Halifax. The first restriction is clearly intended to bring

the Bill within the existing framework of the Shops Act and the relevant schedules thereto. The second is intended to ensure that shops and stores allowed to operate will mainly sell goods related to textiles. That is closely related to the original use of the hall as the commercial centre of the local wool and cloth trade and it will also be complementary to the present use of certain parts of the hall for museum purposes.
At present, there are two museums related to the Piece hall which bring to life the industrial heritage of the area. The promoters of the Bill believe that although the hall itself with the museums and art galleries in it, all of which are open on Sundays, provides a centre well worth visiting, the number of visitors attracted to the hall on Sundays would be significantly increased if the market could operate more fully. As a result, it is hoped there would be a considerable improvement in the local economy and in the attraction of visitors to the area. It would also enable the full recreational potential of the hall to be used.
I am aware of the doubts of some Members about the propriety of trading on Sundays, but the position of the Piece hall is such that local inhabitants will not be disturbed, and the primary purpose of the Bill is to enhance a recreational facility. The stores and shops are small businesses operated by their owners, so there is absolutely no question of staff being required to work additional hours against their will when they would prefer to rest.
The Bill is an ideal compromise between those who support and those who oppose a change in the Sunday trading laws. It will allow those who wish to trade and to shop within the great limitations of the Bill to do so in an entirely separate location, well away from any residential development. Those who wish to have a quiet, residential and holy day will be able to go about their business undisturbed.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the relevant trade unions are being consulted about the proposal and, if so, what their views are?

Mr. Galley: I do not think that there will be much trade union involvement, because the people who would operate the shops and stalls would be owners and small business men selling their own goods. Those operating the services in the Calderdale metropolitan borough council agree with the plan. As far as I know, the trade unions that represent those who work for the metropolitan borough council do not disagree, nor does any other organisation in the town.
Some people would take a parochial attitude and say, "Why should limited Sunday trading be permitted in Halifax when it is not permitted in my town?" The Bill seeks not to allow Sunday trading in Halifax per se, but to allow a Sunday market, which is predominantly related to textiles, in one unique building, the like of which no other town or city possesses. The building has unusual and historic links with textile trading. According to the Civic Trust, the building has no equal, other than Covent garden.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend answer his own question and tell the House why Halifax should have this advantage?

Mr. Galley: If my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) had listened to me, he would appreciate the reason for it. Halifax has a unique building,


which is paralleled only by Covent garden, and which is underestimated as part of our national heritage. We seek to develop the building and the local economy. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has a comparable building in his constituency, he can introduce a private Bill of this nature, which seeks to enhance the local heritage and economy.
Some traders claim that such a Sunday market may put them at a disadvantage. That is not true. Such a market cannot satisfy everyday shopping needs. The goods offered would generally be bought by visitors, who would not shop locally, and would be special purchases related to the heritage and economy of the area. In nearby towns it is claimed that visitors will be attracted to Halifax, to their disadvantage. That is not true. Part of the purpose of the venture is to attract people to a wide area, whose architectural, rural and other delights would be marketed in the Piece hall. It is important that the House recognises the tourist potential of west Yorkshire and the many benefits that it can offer.
Others ask why the market should be held in a publicly owned building, the consequence of which is to bring in revenue for the council. By "council", they mean ratepayers. The local people will benefit if the Bill is enacted. Those who will run the market stalls will be the proponents par excellence of private enterprise.
The council is asking the House to support its endeavours to enhance its most important building as a tourist attraction. It seeks to introduce into Halifax what already exists in London. London has many Sunday markets, which provide considerable recreational activity. The range of the proposed market would be more limited than the markets which already exist in London. The council seeks to create a living and working building rather than to preserve a relic. It seeks support for a strategy which will encourage local initiative and enterprise in the face of local economic problems. The borough of Calderdale and people of Halifax deserve the support of the House in seeking economic rejuvenation.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I declare an interest. Since before entering the House, I have been a consultant to the store chain that is known as Woolworth Holdings Limited. A tale about that company may be relevant in this case.
Woolworth recently conducted a study in Massachussetts where Sunday trading, which had been forbidden following a wide-ranging debate in the legislature, was accepted less than six months later. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) will be glad to know that a reason for the change was that three or four of the major store groups, together with the trade unions, changed their position, because they found that Sunday trading in adjacent states was drawing as much as 25 per cent. of shops' incomes from Massachussetts to Vermont. Since Sunday trading after 12 noon has been permitted, the workers are better off, trade is much more buoyant and, strangely, the volume of trade which had been promoted in adjacent states has not materially fallen. Everyone is better off and enjoying a higher standard of living.
Next month, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will inform the House about Sunday trading generally, when he receives the report from the working

party, which he has set up. Tonight is not the appropriate time to discuss that. Although I wish the citizens of Halifax nothing but health, happiness and prosperity, it is bizarre that the city fathers are promoting a measure that will allow people to trade on Sunday and at the same time are hurling thunderbolts in the form of summonses at everyone else who attempts to trade on Sunday, including my friends in B and Q—part of the great Woolworth empire.
Hon. Members should think carefully about whether they wish to permit a privilege in one area which they deny to others. The House may feel that this matter should more properly form part of the general debate.

Mr. Galley: Why are special privileges allowed to operate in parts of London, when they are not allowed to operate on a very limited scale relating only to textiles in one building of national heritage importance?

Mr. Stevens: Most of the Sunday trading exceptions allowed in London are on the basis of religion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) did not mention in his speech.
I was on the last sentence of my brief intervention when my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) kindly intervened. I have said what I had to say, so I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House——

Mr. Gary Waller: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he acknowledge that some of his remarks might be misleading? He said that the local authority was planning to trade but that it would still enforce the law against others who wished to do the same. He should be aware that the local authority must enforce the law, whether or not it believes in the Shops Act 1950, because it is the enforcement authority. He should also understand that the local authority does not wish to trade in the Piece hall; it simply wishes to enable traders to carry on their activities and at the same time bring in some revenue for the ratepayers of Calderdale. I hope that my hon. Friend was not deliberately misled on this point.

Mr. Stevens: I cannot make up my mind whether my hon. Friend's intervention was designed to keep me on my feet for longer or whether he was making a point to which he believed I could usefully respond. I imputed no vice to the burgesses of Halifax; no suggestion was made that they were behaving illegally or improperly. All that I said was that until now—presumably it will continue—they have implemented the Sunday trading laws in the area for which they are responsible. We have been told that the council is the owner of the Halifax Piece hall, and it is splitting hairs to say that it is not asking to trade on Sunday itself but simply wishes to permit trade to be carried on in premises of which it is the proprietor. However, if my hon. Friend's rebuke will be appeased by my confessing my fault, I am happy to do so, and I hope without further delay to resume my seat.

Mr. Conal Gregory: As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said, the Bill seeks to secure a change in the law on Sunday trading. It would be for local use. The building about which he spoke so eloquently is not relevant to the principle under discussion.


I oppose this piecemeal approach to legislation. It is a back-door method that would set apart one place from other parts of Britain at a time when the legislation on trading hours is under public discussion.
The Shops Acts, which govern only England and Wales, derive from the Fairs and Markets Act 1448. The Shops Act 1950 is unsatisfactory for Sunday trading legislation, because there are countless anomalies. Although alcohol can be purchased on a Sunday, mothers cannot legally buy powered milk for babies; sales of bibles are prohibited, but not magazines devoted to what is euphemistically called soft pornography. In consequence, a committee of inquiry has been asked
to consider what changes are needed in the Shops Acts, having regard to the interests of consumers, employers and employees, and to the traditional character of Sunday, and to make recommendations as to how these should be achieved.
We should not introduce legislation that would cut across the inquiry, its findings and their consideration by the House. The Committee's deliberations may lead to the most far-reaching change for the retail trades in England and Wales since the abolition of resale price maintenance in 1964. It will influence jobs in the labour-intensive retail trades, the structure of retailing and certainly consumer prices.
This is very much a live issue in York. One retail sports store, which took £91,000 on a Sunday in January, was fined £250 plus costs. Following the judgment in Stoke-on-Trent City Council v. B and Q (Retail) Ltd. on 17 May, I hope that local authorities will ensure that traders stay within the law. If a local authority condones unlawful Sunday trading and does not use its power under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to institute proceedings, I hope that responsible bodies such as chambers of commerce will ensure that the statutory duty is enforced by an order of mandamus on judicial review, as in Regina v. Braintree district council last year.
I wonder whether Calderdale borough council has prosecuted illegal Sunday traders. The question was asked, but my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has so far declined to answer it. I also question, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), whether there might be illegality in some areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax did not say whether the citizens of that authority have petitioned against the Bill. If they have, not only does the Bill go against the democratic will, but it will seek a back-door breach in advance of the findings of the committee of inquiry. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to oppose this ill-conceived legislation.

Mr. Marcus Fox: I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). I have listened to this short debate in astonishment. We all accept that piecemeal legislation is undesirable, but the laws on Sunday trading are ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) admits that he is involved with a chain store. What is surprising is that the opponents of Sunday trading——

Mr. Martin Stevens: I did not "admit" it; I stated it.

Mr. Fox: I was seeking to show that, by stating it, my hon. Friend had admitted it. There is an unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and the two Opposition Members in the Chamber—that is an amazing attendance—who are concerned about the trade

unions. We know what happened with a previous measure that wished to bring some sense to Sunday trading. The chain stores and multiple retailers and the trade unions managed to defeat us, although it cannot be said that the people outside this Chamber believed that the present laws were right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is trying to introduce a little change. How many people have visited the Piece hall? I have, and I can tell the House that it is a farce that tourists cannot go there on Sundays and buy the goods described by my hon. Friend. The suggestion that it would affect other traders in Halifax is not true. I have heard it said that there is no abuse of Sunday trading in London, but I know of many markets there. Does my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) dare to get to his feet and tell the House that York, which is the capital city of my county—it is a gem of a city into which tourists flood—has no shops open on Sundays? There are exemptions in all tourist areas, especially on the coasts.
This tiny measure would at least show people outside the Chamber that we will not put up with these ridiculous laws for much longer.

Sir Michael Shaw: I should like briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on the Bill. If hon. Members who feel inclined. not to support the Bill were to go to see the Piece hall, as I have done many times, they would realise that it is a tourist attraction, but one that is not getting the attention it warrants. When people are staying with friends in the west riding of Yorkshire and want to go somewhere for a day out, one of the attractions they must consider is the Piece hall. It spells out uniquely the character of our past.
The traditions of the Piece hall have been borne in mind in the request for an extension of the permission to trade on Sundays. A general bar is not being sought. Great care has been taken over the restoration of the Piece hall and other buildings in the area. We have a genuine tourist attraction that has a great historical content.
An easement of the law on Sunday trading is available to many places that have special historical interest. It should be available in this case. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to give the greatest sympathy to the case put forward by my hon. Friend. I hope that they will support the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 37.

Division No. 378]
[7.52 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hayes, J.


Durant, Tony
Hayward, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hind, Kenneth


Forth, Eric
Hirst, Michael


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Howard, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Freud, Clement
Hunter, Andrew


Galley, Roy
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Gow, Ian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)






Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Spencer, Derek


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitfield, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Proctor, K. Harvey



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Marcus Fox and Mr. Gary Waller.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')





NOES


Alton, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Neubert, Michael


Body, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Cockeram, Eric
Pawsey, James


Farr, Sir John
Penhaligon, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Holt, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Irving, Charles
Stanbrook, lvor


Jackson, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lilley, Peter
Waddington, David


McCrea, Rev William
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Winterton, Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Woodcock, Michael


Marek, Dr John



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and Mr. Greg Knight.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Housing Defects Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 5

SERVICE OF NOTICES

'(1) Any notice or other document under this Act may be given to or served on any person and any application or written request under this Act may be made to any person—

(a) by delivering it to him or leaving it at his proper address, or
(b) by sending it to him by post,

and also, where the person concerned is a body corporate, by giving or making it to or serving it on the secretary or clerk of that body.

(2) For the purposes of this section and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section, the proper address of any person Shall be—

(a) in the case of a body corporate or its secretary or clerk, the address of the principal office of the body,
(b) in any other case, his last known address,

and also, where an additional address for service has been specified by that person in a notice under section 18(3) of this Act, that address. '—[Mr. Gow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new clause is self-evident. The procedures in the Bill, notably in clauses 3, 4, 6 and 11, require the service of notices by the appropriate authority, and the making of written requests by the person eligible for assistance. In some cases, there are time limits. It is important that it should be clear what will suffice to comply with the requirement to serve a notice or to make a written request. The Bill does not at present deal with the mechanics of serving such notices and making such requests and the new clause remedies that omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

HOUSING DEFECTS COMMISSION

'(1) There shall be established an advisory committee to be called the Housing Defects Commission (in this Act called "the Commission") for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act (other than section 20).

(2) The Commission shall consist of not less than 10 members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and one of those members shall be appointed to the Chair and another to the deputy chair. The members shall include persons representing appropriate authorities and persons representing organisations of occupants of defective dwellings whether designated under section 1 of this Act or otherwise.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Commission may advise the Secretary of State about the financial consequences of the exercise of power under this Act for local authorities and any other matters which appear to the Commission to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—ANNUAL REPORT
'The Secretary of State shall in each year publish and lay before Parliament a report giving details of the number of dwellings for which reinstatement grants have been given or repurchase has taken place and showing the number of such dwellings and the amount spent in respect of such dwellings as a percentage respectively of the total number of dwellings held by local authorities which are defective and of the total expenditure required to demolish, replace, repair or reinstate the total number of defective dwellings held by local authorities.'

Mr. Fraser: New clause 1 seeks to establish a housing defects commission, which would advise the Government on the operation of the measure. Secondly, it would include as members of the commission not only people appointed by the Minister but representatives of local authorities and, not least of all, occupants, including tenants, of defective dwellings. I suspect that the attitude of architects, civil servants and Ministers would be different if they spent about five to 10 years living in somewhere such as Ronan Point, or living in premises that were damp, full of condensation or falling apart, as they are in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is a good idea to have a housing defects commission that has on it people with experience of non-traditional dwellings that have proved to be defective. Thirdly, and with a little ingenuity, the commission would advise the Minister on the consequences of the measure, not just for privately owned dwellings that have been bought from local authorities but from publicly owned defective homes.
New clause 2 would oblige the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the Bill, and effectively it would demand of him that he report to Parliament on the state of all defective houses and flats. The new clause epitomises the Opposition's view—a view that is not shared by the Government—that those who bought houses that have proved to be defective from local authorities should be treated on a par with those who have chosen not to buy their homes from local authorities because they were either too poor or too wise to buy defective premises that were built mainly, in the case of houses that we are discussing, of prefabricated reinforced concrete.
Mercifully, Britain is free from natural disasters. We sometimes read how, elsewhere, earthquakes have decimated homes in a region or how a flood can tear the heart out of a city. It happened in Bilbao only a year ago. Happily, in Britain, nature does not make many mistakes—it can quite safely leave that to the native genius of the British themselves. In Britain, when we have disasters, they are normally man-made or, in case I am accused of sexism, or neglecting the Prime Minister, they may be woman-made as well.
By 1981 there were approximately 5 million publicly owned homes and recent Association of Metropolitan Authorities reports tell us that within that total there are 500,000 non-traditional dwellings built before 1960, for which the final cost of repair, refurbishment or even demolition will be about £5,000 million. In the words of the AMA, the defects are
very serious and relate to the main structural components as such. They will be very costly to repair but the problem is very much of continuing deterioration.
The figure for post-1960s, industrialised and system-built dwellings is contained in a second AMA report. It thinks that a realistic figure for industrialised dwellings is

1 million in local authority stock, and says that the defects problem is widespread and has affected low, medium and high-rise forms of construction. It estimates that the average cost of repair per unit will be £5,000, making a repair cost for post-1960s defective dwellings of around another £5,000 million, bearing in mind that 10,000 of such dwellings have already been demolished at a cost of about £300 million. That is for buildings built in the past 20 or so years.
We complain about the partiality of the assistance to those who have bought their homes because about 30 per cent. of all publicly owned homes are now likely to be within a class of dwelling that is a probable candidate for demolition or at very least costly repairs. It is not lighthearted use of language to describe that as a man-made disaster. That is in the context of 80,000 families a year being accepted as homeless, of twice that number of families applying to be treated as homeless and of over 1 million dwellings in England alone classified as unfit.
The Government have a heavy responsibility for the development of housing. Local authorities were bulldozed into new industrialised systems, and warned off being cautious or careful. Subsidy arrangements were twisted to fit the new industrial housing revolution. Governments of both parties set the quotas, and gave priority to the processing of industrialised schemes. Most of all, Government, through the National Building Agency, classified this new breed of dwellings as safe, sound, reliable and good for a mortgage or loan for 60 years. That is the context in which we are discussing the limited assistance contained in the Bill.
If the Government established a housing defects commission and were obliged to give an annual report to Parliament it would do a number of things. First, it would underline the massive nature of Britain's housing problem, particularly in non-traditional homes built mainly after the last world war, some of which are literally falling apart and many of which have already had to be demolished.
Secondly, the new clause will provide evidence for the Opposition's indictment of Government policy on publicly owned housing stock. There are several counts to that indictment. The first is that the only area where there is a strategy or policy is where defective homes have been sold by local or other public authorities to private owners. There is no credible strategy or policy for those that were not sold into the private sector.
As I have tried to emphasise time and time again throughout the passage of the Bill, there are about 15,000 or 16,000 private owners who have purchased defective non-traditional homes from local authorities for whom help is provided in the Bill. About 1·5 million homes are occupied by local or public authority tenants whose homes are equally well classifiable as defective, which are of much the same construction as the homes dealt with in the Bill, but for which no help is provided at all. For every one home for which assistance is provided in the Bill. there are about 99 homes for which there is no credible strategy or policy whatever.
The Minister has some biblical support for what he is doing, in the words of St. Luke:
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine, just persons, which need no repentance.
Apparently, the Minister takes the view that the private purchaser who repents over the exercise of the right to buy will inspire joy in the Department of the Environment. But


for every one of those who bought there will be another 99 who are living in rotten conditions, and whose homes may be literally falling apart, for whom no assistance is provided. A report will show up the lack of any policy towards those who remain in the public sector.
In many local authorities—for example, Epping and Rochester—the capital cost of meeting the obligations under the Bill will be two or three times the entire public housing investment programme of those authorities. There are other authorities, such as Leeds, where the most recent HIP allocation was £28 million to deal with new construction, assistance in the private sector by way of improvement and repair grants, and to provide new build as well. That £28 million has to cover all those areas of expenditure, when the estimated bill for dealing with industrialised and non-traditional homes alone is £104 million. Yet no provision is made in the Bill for such an authority and there is no statement of Government policy.

Mr. Gow: The truth is that no additional powers need to be given to local authorities in order that they may deal with the houses which remain in their ownership.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged during a previous debate on this subject, the cost of repairs can in many cases be spread over a large number of years. It is a grave mistake to believe that these houses are in every case in need of urgent repair. On the contrary, in many cases repairs will not be required for many years to come.

Mr. Fraser: I accept what the Minister says about local authorities having the power to carry out repairs. But that power is pointless without the resources. Over the past five years the HIP has been cut by about 60 per cent. The total amount planned to be spent in public housing in the public expenditure White Paper for 1985–86 is in real terms 35 per cent. of the figure that was dedicated to public expenditure on housing in 1979–80. It is true that that includes both revenue and capital. To talk about the power or the ability of a local authority to deal with the backlog of repairs, and sometimes the demolition, of defective industrialised non-traditional stock is nonsense. The Government have cut back savagely on public expenditure on local authority housing. It is meaningless to say that the local authority has the power to do these things. It is rather like saying that a father has the power to provide for his family while he is unemployed at a higher standard than the rate of benefit he is getting.
A commission report will also provide evidence that money coming from public sources is inadequate. In the current year the HIP for England and Wales is £2·5 billion. A large part of that will go into the private sector by way of repair and improvement grants. Some of it will go on new build and about £1 billion will be allocated to the major repair and renovation of local authority stock.
If—this probably answers the Minister's question—for the next 10 years the HIP is not cut further—there is no guarantee of that—and if it remains exactly the same, if the apportionment of resources in that programme remains the same, and if all the money that is available in the current year for the renovation and repair of local authority dwellings is spent on nothing but post-war nontraditional industrialised and system-built housing, one

will be able to deal with the backlog. That would mean that over the next 10 years nothing at all would be spent on the rest of the local authority stock.
If the Minister is obliged, after receiving the advice of the housing commission, to report such matters regularly to the House of Commons and to the nation, the massive nature of the problem that we have with local authority housing would be underlined.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted include the capital receipts that local authorities can receive from the sale of surplus land and housing?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. The figure that I quoted of £2·5 billion is the gross expenditure after taking into account the 60 per cent. recovery of capital receipts for local authorities. The net figure shows the cutting of public investment on housing. The net HIP for England and Wales is about £1·8 billion compared with the gross figure of £2·5 billion, which I quoted in order to be fair to the Government by giving some credit for capital receipts.
With more regular reporting and a greater public focus on the problems which I have described, the spotlight would be turned on the misjudgment of Whitehall in dealing with housing. The Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction should be engines of compassion for those who are badly housed in Britain. No one disputes that hundreds of thousands of families live in inadequate, overcrowded and shared accommodation.
The Department should provide work. The repair and improvement of our housing stock would provide employment. Lord knows, Britain needs more employment. It ought to be underlining the need for housing investment. Instead, it acts as a Department of liquidators for the Treasury, providing the sacrifices for each annual review and cut in expenditure.

Mr. Derek Spencer: The Bill is based on the fact that the houses have suffered from a latent defect which only became known in the past two or three years as a result of the work of the Building Research Establishment. Is it not a fact that there has been substantial expenditure on some of those houses by local authorities in recent times? Therefore, it is nonsense to categorise them as being a collection of houses that have been uniformly neglected over the years.

Mr. Fraser: The allegation is not that they have been neglected over the years, but that, under pressure by Ministers of both parties, to meet high expectations by the public for a big building programme, a large number of dwellings were built which at the time, according to the judgment of the National Building Agency, ought to have stood the test of time but have not done so. It is not a matter of neglect, and it is of no use now to try to apportion blame.
I ask the Department of the Environment to recognise that there is a major problem. That no one disputes. The Government do not fail to recognise this, but they acknowledge the nature of the problem, and the ability to demand a solution, only where a house has been sold by a public or local authority to a person in the private sector.
The Government continually talk about cuts in public expenditure, and have savaged the public housing budget of the last five years, yet, to retain credibility in relation


to their right-to-buy policy they provide in the Bill for a capital expenditure of approximately £250 million, because they recognise the serious nature of the problem in the private sector. If the Government can recognise the serious nature of the problem for those in private accommodation who have bought houses from the public authority, they should give parity of treatment to those who remain in the public sector. Acceptance of the clause would put into perspective the problems of those in both sectors.
I illustrate the problem from something that occurred in my constituency. There is a number of Wates PRC-built houses in the constituency. People who have come to my advice bureau are deeply concerned that they find it impossible to sell their houses because of deterioration, and the reputation that those houses have attracted. I have been able to tell those private owners that, when the Bill is enacted, they will be able to go to the local authority and, irrespective of the other housing priorities of the local authority and of the funds available to Lambeth borough council, they will be able to demand a reinstatement grant, or to sell to the local authority. They will have an immediate solution to their problems, and their rights against the local authority will be mandatory. I have been able to give them those reassurances, and I have advised them that I will help the Bill on its way.
Last Friday, someone from that group of houses came to see me who has not bought her house. I have been told in a letter that recently the masonry on the PRC house has been disintegrating. One corner of the house is coming apart. The gutters are broken and water is running down the prefabricated walls, penetrating the inside of the house and causing mould in the bedrooms. The stairs are coming apart. The movement of the house is causing the windows to rust and buckle so that five window panes have cracked under pressure. The differential movement in the house has caused the front door to drop. Some defects are recent, and in some cases the defects go back to 1978. This complaint comes from a lady aged 75 who is finding it intolerable to live in the house. It cannot be right to allow a person who is a tenant to depend upon the availablility of resources from a local authority that is already penalised, that will be rate-capped next year and that has suffered a savage cut as between the amount for which it asked in the housing investment programme and the amount that was allocated.
The intention of the new clauses is to underline the lack of parity of treatment between those in the private sector and the number of tenants—we are not sure how many; it may be 1·5 million families—living in defective homes for which there is no coherent policy, and for which insufficient resources are provided. The establishment of a commission that reports to Parliament will underline that inequity, and in time may allow it to be removed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who was open in describing the purpose of the two new clauses, rehearsed arguments that he has adduced in earlier proceedings on the Bill. If we have not yet persuaded the hon. Gentleman that there is a distinction between what the Bill tries to achieve and the problems that exist in the housing stock in general, I fear that I am unlikely to persuade him of that tonight.
Since the beginning of the legislation, we have insisted that the Bill has a specific purpose to help those whose

assets, having been purchased from public authorities, are suddenly devalued through no fault of their own. The discovery of a defect, which in many cases is a latent one and may cause no physical damage for a considerable period of time, may, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said, cause the value of the asset that somebody has purchased in good faith to drop considerably. It is to remedy that position that the Bill was originally brought before the House.
I shall deal with the new clauses specifically in terms of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood will realise that my reaction, and that of my hon. Friends, on reading new clause 1 was that it was an attempt to create a quango with the rather grand title of housing defects commission. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the purpose of such a commission would be to advise the Secretary of State on the operation of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of the Government he may decide that such advice is not necessary. The Government have been aware of the problem from the start and they have taken the initiative and consulted throughout. It was not even a question of designation by the Secretary of State coming as a bolt from the blue. There will usually be ample time for interested parties to put their points of view to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend said in Committee, it is unlikely that a designation will he made by the Secretary of State without full and proper consultation. I repeat that undertaking.
In the detailed operation of the provisions, the Secretary of State can be expected to monitor carefully the working of the Bill. For that purpose, we have inevitably to be closely in touch with many of the categories of person whom the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned as possible members of such a commission—for instance, owners of defective houses, local authorities, building societies, the professions and the construction industry. I see no point in institutionalising that consultative process in the way envisaged in new clause 1. New clause 1 is unnecessary in my view. It would add nothing to the advice that my right hon. Friend has already sought, and intends to seek, in the operation of the Bill and the making of designations. To accept the clause would be to accept the creation of yet another unnecessary quango. I recommend the House not to accept the new clause.
The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 2 is intended as a hook on which to hang the views that he has put before the House on the problems in the public sector.
8.30 pm
The new clause would establish a system of monitoring the scheme of assistance embodied in the Bill. When such a new measure is introduced, we need information on whether the policy objectives are being met and so that we can control public expenditure. The Government will arrange for the relevant information to be collected. We have not yet finalised the details, so I cannot give an exact undertaking about the way in which the information will be gathered.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State each year to prepare and publish a formal report to lay before Parliament. Opposition Members, especially those who have had departmental responsibility, will know that we are talking not simply about running off a few tables and stapling them together. The preparation and publication of a formal report requires considerable preparatory work in a Department and adds considerably


to the cost of providing information. I do not know why that requirement is considered necessary in one respect but not in relation to other housing measures, unless that requirement is sought for the reasons that the hon. Member for Norwood has explained.
New clause 2 is also unnecessary, partly because of the reasons that I have given, but also because it is too rigid. We intend to monitor the operation of the scheme, and hon. Members will be able to question the Government on the results of the monitoring. We do not need a formal report. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood, when he has considered what I have said and since he has again rehearsed his arguments on the general problems in the public sector, will not press the new clauses.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the two new clauses, especially now that I have heard the Minister. He said that there was a distinction between what the Bill sets out to do to deal with the specific problems of former local authority tenants who have purchased their properties and the problems of the housing stock generally. The Minister went right to the heart of the new clauses and to what the Opposition have argued throughout the Bill's passage.
There is no quarrel between the Government and the Opposition about the need to sort out and help those who have problems with purchased properties which turn out to be defective. The argument is about the overall context in which action is to be taken. The setting up of a commission and the publication of an annual report are crucial.
It would be foolish for the Government simply to tell the House that they have a good record for dealing with the specific problem of purchased properties when so many as yet unpurchased properties cause so many tenants to suffer perhaps more severely than the occupiers of properties with which the Government are dealing.
The proposed commission and report would do a simple job. The new clauses seek to set the Government's record in implementing the specifics of this legislation in the overall context of the general housing stock. The Government are not tackling the problems of tenants who have not sought to purchase their properties and who live in defective housing.
The commission would specifically, in its composition and breadth of remit, deal with the overall local authority housing stock. The report would cover not just properties that have been purchased, but those that have not.
Parliament has to consider such problems, provide the money and scrutinise Government action. If Parliament is to make a proper judgment of the Government's actions and intentions, it should be presented with the opportunity to examine the overall picture and to consider the problems of those who are not being assisted by the Government as well as narrowly considering the Government's record of assisting those people covered by the Bill.
My hon. Friend eloquently described the principle of panty between those who have purchased and those who have not. I am proud to support that principle. I should have thought that the Government would have made more of an effort to embrace that principle, but they have not. The Bill deals solely with the interests of people who have

purchased their homes. The Government have singularly failed to take account of the interests and needs of those who remain tenants in defective housing.
I recall when the Minister came to the House to introduce the Bill. I pressed him to explain what would happen to those who had not purchased their properties and to local authorities faced with the enormous problems and cost of trying to assist them. He said that local authorities' problems would be taken into account by the Government when setting the housing investment programme allocations. What nonsense. If taking into account local authorities' problems means halving the housing investment programme allocations over three years—as my local authority and others have experienced—I fail to see how the Government can claim to be attempting to deal with tenants' difficulties.
In my constituency there is a tower block called Gambier house, built by the Bison wall-frame method of construction. Following the publicity that that method has attracted in the last year or two, the tenants of that block are deeply worried about the safety of their homes. In response, the local authority rightly undertook a thorough survey of the block to establish whether it is safe. The results are not yet known.
Unidentified sums may have to be spent by the local authority to ensure that the tenants are secure, safe and content. The local authority does not have sufficient resources to deal with the problems. Severe constraints have already been placed on its capital programme of work. When, two or three weeks ago, I raised the related issue of asbestos, which is dealt with in later amendments, I was told that no additional money would be available for local authorities to deal with that problem.
We can only assume that the Government, in the same way, will say that there is no additional money for local authorities to deal with the problems of defective housing as and when they become evident to local authorities. If so, other aspects of local authority housing programmes will have to suffer. It means that other tenants, to accommodate the problems of tenants in defective housing, will have their hopes and aspirations set back because local authorities will not have sufficient funds to help both those categories.
If the Government are really serious in saying that local authorities have the power to deal with the problem, they must surely appreciate that they do not have the resources to so so. If the Government are really serious about wishing to deal equally and fairly between those who have and those who have not purchased, they should at least have the decency to look at the overall cost to local authorities, to consider the picture around the country as a whole and to consider how the necessary programme of work can be phased. They must agree with local authorities how they can help with the necessary resources, without digging into the money already needed by other housing programmes.
In asking for a commission to be established and for a report to be made to Parliament, the Opposition are simply seeking to assist the Government in that process. We are simply telling the Government that it is crucial, not only for those who have purchased but for those who remain as tenants, that there should be a properly funded programme of work over a number of years, and that that must be planned by the Government in concert with local authorities and tenants' representatives.
The proper way to go about that is through a commission. If the Government reject that idea, they are rejecting the interests, needs and hopes of all those tenants—desperate and anxious—who are living in housing that has defects and needs work to put it right.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for missing the first few moments of his speech. No doubt he put forward the valid arguments that he, I and others put forward on Second Reading and in Committee. They should be supported in their entirety.
The Government will probably not move on this issue. We understand their approach—they intend to deal only with the smaller, specific category of those who have bought their properties and not with those living as tenants in the defective system-built houses. We do not expect a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus—although there should be, in the interests of long-term, domestic, satisfactory housing for a large number of our fellow citizens. They will need help sooner or later. The truth is that investment in housing sooner is cheaper than investment in housing later. If we do not spend money now on putting right the increasing number of houses that are deteriorating because they were built so long ago, when the problems increase the money will be even less readily available.
Of the two new clauses that we are discussing, we believe that the second, new clause 2, is the more important and desirable. It proposes an annual report. I ask the Minister to think again about the Government's attitude towards that proposal. If he cannot do so tonight, I hope that he will do so before the Bill has passed through its final stages. There are two reasons why an annual report would be useful and of great advantage to all sides. First, it would allow both us and the country to see exactly what proportion of this housing has been dealt with in a way that guarantees it a long-term future and its occupiers a decent life style. Secondly, it would provide the Minister with an opportunity to tell us what he proposes to do about all the other types of system-built housing which have not yet been included in the groups that he has mentioned as eligible for assistance.
8.45 pm
There are many examples of that. One, of which I know the Minister is aware, is the problem with the 14,000 houses built under the British Iron and Steel Federation scheme after the war. The main intentions were to use surplus steel and to contribute quickly to demand for housing after the war. That housing is now in a bad state. Many of those properties are in London, including some in the borough of Ealing which is represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. That category of housing needs special help, support and money.
The Minister will have seen the recent article in the Building Trades Journal. It makes a fair, technical appraisal of the problems and suggests ways to deal with them. It makes it clear that one problem that becomes worse in that form of housing is the risk of fire. The passage of time as well as the corroding structure makes those houses more problematical.
An annual report would be an ideal opportunity not just to deal with the drop that the private sector—which will be eligible for money—represents in the ocean, but to

allow the Minister to tell us how categories that have not been dealt with will be handled—both for those who have bought and for those who are still tenants.
If we are to have some concessions, but not many, from the Government, I hope that one will be an agreement to come to the House with an annual report so that, in time, we can put money into our housing stock that will provide investment for us and will increasingly prevent those living in those properties from what is already a most unpleasant experience that becomes worse by the week and substantially worse by the year. We must ensure that the job is done, and an annual report is the only way to do so.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I can well understand that the Government do not like quangos, but the Opposition do not like the exclusion of tenants, and the local authorities responsible for those tenants, from the beneficial provisions of the Bill. The tenants far outnumber the owners who will benefit from the Bill.
The Government are abandoning the local authorities in respect of the statutory responsibilities which they, as landlords, must fulfil to their tenants, because the costs of remedial work will be horrendous in the years ahead. The Government say that there is no immediate problem for certain types of structure, but the fact remains that there will be an almighty rush by those who have bought and now find that they can either claim the reinstatement grant or part of the repurchase price through the provisions of this legislation. I do not think they will take the view that time is on their side, and to that extent they will have a more immediate remedy than the tenants who remain.
On Second Reading I pointed out that, in an ironic sense, the Government, who are such firm advocates of council house sales, were denying thousands of tenants in those houses that have already been identified as having structural faults the possibility of home ownership, because building societies will not give mortgages or provide facilities to those who are in houses which have been so identified and have not thus far been purchased.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), with his Edinburgh education, recalled the phrase, "Ministers will take into account". That phrase is not unknown north of the border. It usually means that they will do nothing, although they do not want to make it too well known that they will do nothing. They simply say that they will take whatever it is into account. I think I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), nodding in assent; he has the honesty to admit his rhetorical tricks. I have spent so much time dealing with the Scottish housing Minister, including a session of the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, that I know him only too well.
The AMA has put a figure of £5 million on remedying the faults that it believes have been identified, and that excludes the Scottish figure That argues that there is a case for a body which can address its attention to the difficulties that will have to be resolved in a way that Departments of State do not necessarily gear themselves to because of the many other responsibilities which they must fulfil.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) made a significant contribution about the Government's adoption of a moral stance in dealing


with the plight of owners. As I said then, and I repeat, we look for that same moral stance in dealing with the difficulties facing tenants.
I too am sceptical about annual reports. However, the purpose of the new clause is to have more than a document which will provide information. It is designed to have a document the preparation of which will oblige those responsible for doing things to state their case, to assess the nature of the problem and outline the action which will be taken.
The sort of problems that we discussed more fully in Committee have shown that there will be considerable on-costs for local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. The sooner the Government admit that they have a responsibility to tenants, as well as to owners, the better. For those reasons, we shall press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I took it that he understood that the commission being proposed should be for the protection of the interests of the tenants of defective housing. If that was his intention, it is not reflected in the new clause, which says in subsection (1) that the advisory committee shall have
the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act".
Therefore, I took it that it referred to this Bill and the application of it to those who have purchased their houses.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has failed, however, to read further on in the new clause because under subsection (3) there is included within the remit of the committee
any other matters which appear to the Commission"—
not to the Secretary of State—
to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act.
The Minister could not have been listening when I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that the context within which the measure has come before Parliament, and within which it will operate, is crucial to Parliament in assessing the performance of the Government under the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: However the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (3), it relates to the operation and the effects of this measure and, as I said, the Bill is designed to help those who have purchased their houses. To that extent, the intentions that he portrayed are not reflected in what he has proposed. That reinforces the view that I put at the outset when I said that it would be a quango which would be there to advise and help the Secretary of State consult on matters about which he is already fully advised and on which he already fully consults. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The information that he seeks is, and will be, available and can be pursued through the normal process of parliamentary questioning. To set up a formal report and all that that would entail, in terms of cost and time, to produce the same information in a more formalised and rigid form would not serve the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How, then, are we to have progress reports on the Government's consideration, for

example, of British Iron and Steel Federation houses, which should be the subject of reports to the House on a regular basis?

Mr. Ancram: The Minister for Housing and Construction visited BISF houses yesterday and he is fully aware of the situation. As I said earlier, once this legislation is operative, it will be in everyone's interest to see that its purposes are being fulfilled, and for that reason the information will be gathered and progress monitored. That information would obviously be subject to questions from hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will feel able to withdraw the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 122.

Division No. 379]
[8.58 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dewar, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Penhaligon, David


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Grevilie



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.


McCartney, Hugh





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Henderson, Barry


Ancram, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Beggs, Roy
Hirst, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Holt, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howard, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
King, Rt Hon Tom


Couchman, James
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrea, Rev William


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Galley, Roy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David John


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Gregory, Conal
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mather, Carol


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harvey, Robert
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayes, J.
Moore, John


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher






Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Onslow, Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Twinn, Dr lan


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Viggers, Peter


Powley, John
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitfield, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, lvor
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. John Major.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

APPEALS

`The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for persons to appeal against decisions and determinations made under this Act namely—
(a) any decision by a local authority and any exercise of a judgment or discretion under this Act;
(b) any determination of a value by the district valuer.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 9, 15, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32.

Mr. Fraser: We discussed this matter in Committee. In a series of clauses, but especially in clause 3, local authorities must be satisfied that certain conditions are met. That means that a local authority, which might be hard up for cash, will have to make a judgment about the eligibility of the owner of the dwelling for repurchase or reinstatement grant and about its resources. That is bound to expose local authorities to criticism, even if they act in good faith—I am not suggesting that anybody would act spitefully or maliciously—if they make a decision that runs contrary to the properly held views of the private owner or his professional advisers on, for example, whether a dwelling qualifies. There is bound to be a nasty taste in the mouth if there is such a difference of opinion and if it is thought that the local authority's decision was motivated by, for example, shortage of cash. Much the best way of tackling these matters is to make the local authority's decision subject to some form of appeal or review by the court. It would be wrong to allow a local authority to be the provider of funds and the judge of whether an owner is eligible for assistance.
That is why I have tabled new clause 3, which introduces the right of appeal. However, I do not think that I need to say more, as I believe that the Government have taken the point on board in their amendments.

Dr. David Owen: I support new clause 3 and hope that the Government intend, through some of their amendments, to clarify this matter in another place. I hope that if the Government make the matter justiciable and allow for appeals on decisions made by local authorities, they will take the opportunity in the other place to look more widely at the injustices that might occur for private tenants.
I agree with all that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. It is entirely right to remind the House of the financial pressures on local authorities. It is estimated that the defects provision could cost west country councils £76 million. I refer to councils in Avon, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire. There is a strong concentration of such housing in the west country. Bristol has 5,500, Restormel has 1,496, Plymouth has 2,528, Thamesdown has 2,004 and Taunton Dene has 998. In the west country, wages are low and local authorities have generally kept within Government guidelines. Therefore, they do not have enough money to absorb such expenditure. With these financial pressures, good local authorities will find that they have to make difficult decisions or, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, people will feel that a decision has been prejudiced by financial stringency.
Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the Minister has not yet come up with any clear-cut assurances that local authorities will have the costs refunded to them. I understand that he has been able to offer some generalised commitments to take account of housing need, but he has not been able to quantify the extra resources that will be needed. In those circumstances, a method of appeal becomes extremely important.
I attach importance to paragraph (b), which relates to the district valuer. He is in a critical position in regard to determination of the price that should be paid. My constituents are worried that an unrealistic costing will come from local authorities, so they want to be assured that they will be able to appeal.
9.15 pm
My plea to the Minister, especially if he is prepared to look at the new clause and to table amendments in the other place, is to consider what happens to private tenants who are unable to get mortgages. Those people in particular should have a right of appeal if their local authority will not make special provision for them.
I thought that on Second Reading the Minister showed great understanding of the problems that people would face when trying to raise mortgages. I understand, too, that there have been lengthy discussions with building societies to try to reach agreement on the matter. I have not heard a statement from the Minister about that, unless I have missed it. I urge him to make it possible for householders to challenge local authority decisions and to take into account not just market valuation but the availability of mortgages. If mortgages are not available, it is still my belief that local authorities should provide them.
Some method of appeal should be available on a wider scale than that included in new clause 3. If the Minister intends to meet the intention behind new clause 3, I hope he will assure us that he will interpret it rather wider: not just on the valuation or on the local authority's judgment, but on that most serious area of all—mortgages.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr.


Owen). The concentration of defective houses in the south-west is not surprising, because all the Cornish unit versions of these houses were built originally at St. Austell in my constituency. One of the authorities most affected is Restormel, which covers St. Austell.
Although we wish for and would support an amendment that would improve the appeal procedure, the real answer is to create a situation in which it is not necessary for the local authorities to buy back the houses.
Taking into account the houses in my constituency and bearing in mind the views of those who have already purchased them, there seems to be no desire to sell the houses. After all, the people bought them voluntarily only a few weeks ago. They do not wish to sell them back to the council, other than because of their fear that they will not be able to sell them again because of the difficulties that potential buyers would face in getting mortgages. The Minister could save a great deal of Government expenditure if he could persuade mortgage companies to make a more realistic appraisal of the Cornish unit houses or offer some kind of guarantee.
I welcome new clause 3. I believe that it will help in some marginal circumstances. However, I ask the Minister to apply his mind to the advantages of solving the real problem. People fear that in the long term they will not be able to sell the properties.
Because of these fears, it is worth seeking information from the Minister on how bad the Government believe the properties to be. People have lived in them for 20 years. There seems to be little damage to them. They are old-fashioned, and I cannot recommend their sound insulation standards, but there is not much wrong with them. One would be hard pressed to find such a house anywhere in the south-west that is in real danger of collapsing. I have not seen one, but pieces of concrete are flaking off some of them, where, say, a bar has gone rusty. That is not ideal, and I can understand why people want repairs to be carried out.
The hype and the feeling towards these properties suggest that one should walk down the streets very carefully, because, if one stamps too hard, two or three houses might fall down. That is manifestly not the position. People who have lived in the houses for years have in the past 12 to 18 months bought them from the local authority. They live in the houses, so they have some reason to back their own knowledge.
Therefore, although I welcome the new clause, I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to a different solution. By all means, let us have the buy-back provision, but most people do not want to sell, although they may eventually use the buy-back provision at great cost to the Government, merely because they fear that the resale value of the property later will be vastly less than they expected because of the mortgage problem.

Mr. Gow: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He will no doubt have seen the Building Research Establishment information paper published in October 1983 which stated that the great majority of the houses studied, including the Cornish units to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were found to be structurally in sound condition, that cracking in a proportion of houses of all types would not occur for some years and that a few houses might no display any evidence

of deterioriation for 30 years or more. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I commend those wise comments to the House. This affects another point that was made earlier in our debates in that the local authorities' responsibility to carry out repairs may fall to be discharged only over an extended period.
I should make it clear to the right hon. Member for Devonport that a reinstatement grant will be made as the suitable and proper form of assistance only if the property will be mortgageable in the private sector when the work has been carried out, because part of the problem is that people who bought their houses believing them to be without defects now find that prospective purchasers cannot obtain martgages. That is absolutely central to the scheme. If the local authority is not satisfied that the property will be mortgageable instead of a reinstatement grant it will give the private owner the opportunity to sell the house back to the authority.
As the right hon. Gentleman was especially concerned abut mortgageability I should also tell him that we have been having discussions with the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for approving methods of repairing PRC houses and providing a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built in the private sector. If such a scheme can be devised, as I hope that it can, that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) reminded the House that it was identical with one that he moved in Committee on 22 May, when I gave an undertaking to consider the thinking behind it. With the new clause, we are discussing amendments tabled by the Government in response to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. Our amendments do not go quite so far as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I believe that they meet the main part of his anxiety.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 would delete from clause 2(3) (b) the words
the appropriate authority are satisfied that".
As a result, the test of eligibility under clause 2(3)(b will be objective and the county court or sheriff court will have jurisdiction to determine the matter under clause 2(3)(b), clause 12 or clause 13 as appropriate. The question of eligibility for assistance, which is dealt with in clause 2, is fundamental to a person's entitlement to assistance. Amendment No. 15 opens all questions of eligibility to determination by the county court.
In these circumstances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister tell the House whether the same provision should apply to the subsection relating to special circumstances, in which a person in special circumstances wishes to sell his house back to the local authority because he has no time to wait to see whether he is entitled to a reinstatement grant? That is contained in clause 3(5). The same test is contained in that clause as the test which the Minister says he is reviewing in relation to the earlier clause. Will he consider amending this at the same time?

Mr. Gow: We have considered that possibility, but after the most careful thought we concluded that the best way to proceed is as the Government have suggested, with


these amendments. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I promise to look at it again. If we think that a further change should be made we shall table an amendment to that effect in another place.

Mr. John Fraser: Before I ask leave to withdraw the new clause, I shall make some comments. I accept that the Government have tried to meet the point that I made in Committee, and that local authority decisions are now justiciable. However, in technical matters regarding whether houses are defective, it is sometimes better for a body, such as the Lands Tribunal or the body that deals with leasehold enfranchisement valuations, to make the decisions, rather than a county court judge. A county court judge or sheriff will have to make a judgment on the competing evidence of two surveyors. It may be cheaper and quicker for the decision to be made by arbitration. Moreover, many people fear going to court. People who sought to take advantage of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 felt inhibited because they had to appeal at the county court and to a berobed judge and because of the costs of legal proceedings.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that on occasion people have serious reservations about the decisions of the district valuer. Under the 1980 legislation, the appeal from a decision of the local authority about the valuation of a dwelling lies with the district valuer. From time to time people genuinely believe that the district valuer is wrong. There should be a further review, perhaps by a senior district valuer from another district, or by a body such as the rent assessment committee, which at present deals with valuations in leaseholder format cases. In some cases it is not right that the district valuer is the final arbiter. Where there are serious grounds for disagreeing with his conclusions, the matter should be taken elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to think about those matters. They are not party political matters, and I ask about them in good faith. Perhaps he will consider taking them further in another place. I know that my colleagues in the other place may seek to raise them.

Mr. Gow: I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which he asks.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DESIGNATION OF DEFECTIVE DWELLINGS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'may' and insert `shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10, after 'construction', insert 'or presence of asbestos'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
'(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in making a designation under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard for the date of design or construction of the buildings concerned nor of the materials or methods used in their construction save insofar as these have given rise to the qualifying defect. '
No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—

'(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in making a designation under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard for the date of design or construction of the buildings concerned.'.

Mr. Fraser: Amendment No. 1 makes it mandatory for the Minister to take a designation order if he is satisfied that dwellings are defective. I realise that it is unusual to place a mandatory duty on Ministers, and if he assures the House that he will always act on information coming to him to the effect that a group of houses or a class of dwellings is defective, I shall be satisfied. But it is important that the House is assured that the Minister will not pick and choose between groups of dwellings. and that once evidence comes to him that is similar to the evidence on the existing 26 classes of dwellings, he will make an order giving the purchaser appropriate rights to a repurchase or reinstatement grant.
Once the Minister makes a designation, the position will be watched carefully not just by owners but by tenants. Even if only a few people have purchased houses outside the 26 classes already proposed to be designated, and even if no homes are purchased in a class of defective dwellings, the Minister should still be willing to make a designation under clause 1. He should not have regard to when the dwelling was designed or built, which materials were used or the method of construction; the only matter that should be in his mind when he decides whether a class of dwellings is defective is the test in the Bill.
Shelter says:
In the future, designation under the Housing Defects Act will give official recognition to the existence of defects in a particular class of buildings. As such it will be an important focus of action by both owners and tenants.
It is likely that tenants will wish their homes to be designated, because once they have been designated as defective it will be much easier for the tenants to put pressure on their local authorities for the appropriate steps to be taken to remedy the defects and, in turn, it will be much easier for local authorities, when putting forward plans for their housing investment programmes, to say to the Minister, "You have already designated this class of dwelling as one in which the owners will be assisted by local authorities under the Housing Defects Act, but we can make out a case for having more assistance from the Government under our housing investment programme to provide for the needs of our tenants." It will be a lever that tenants can use on their local authorities, and that the authorities can put on the Government. For that reason, the definition of defective dwellings should be widely drawn to assist their occupants to assert their rights more effectively.
The Minister should also be willing to designate dwellings as defective if they have a problem with asbestos, because that will enable tenants, as opposed to owners, to put pressure on their local authorities. I do not know how many dwellings that are badly affected by asbestos, which is expensive to remedy, have been sold into the private sector, but there may be a few. I expect that a few misguided people will have got them. It is a massive problem for local authority tenants.
Lambeth council has identified 11,000 dwellings that will need major repairs and refurbishment because of the presence of asbestos. It is calculated that in Lambeth the total number will eventually reach about 20,000. The cost of removing asbestos from those dwellings will be approximately £20 million. Lambeth comes in for little


criticism, but in case this leads to criticism, I must point out that most of these dwellings were built by the Greater London council, not by Lambeth borough council, and were handed over forcibly under the Government's reorganisation. The opportunity to designate a dwelling because of the presence of asbestos should not be omitted, not only to do justice to the private owner but to give additional weight to the arguments of the tenants.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I have a vested interest in my constituency. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a statutory scheme of financial assistance to private owners who have found that houses sold to them by public authorities are defective. The Bill will cover houses that are defective because of design or construction and it will affect only about 16,500 dwellings which were built before 1960. I do not know why the Government picked 1960 as the magic year, because most of the defects that have been discovered in Manchester have been in dwellings built since 1960.
The Opposition have never been opposed to the sentiments of the Bill. What we have opposed from the very beginning have been its glaring omissions. The Bill will assist a number of private owner-occupiers. These people have had a raw deal and it is right that they should be reimbursed. They are victims of bad design or construction, untried building techniques and poor quality materials. They are the victims of system package deals which have blighted many housing estates, as we have heard tonight, in the Second Reading debate and in Committee.
Council tenants are in an even worse predicament if Manchester is anything to go by. It is estimated that about 1 million houses have been built by different system methods since 1960. The Minister has informed us that not all or even the majority of them suffer from serious defects which are the result of the building system. I do not believe that the Minister had done his homework. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members have given examples of catastrophes experienced by different local authorities.
I know what has happened in the Manchester area. How can the Minister ignore the request that the systems to which we have repeatedly referred should be included? How many times must I tell hon. Members, in the House and in Committee, about the devastation and upheaval caused by Bison Concrete Northern Limited? The Wellington street estate was built 10 years after 1960, the date stipulated in the Bill. Yet 10 years after construction, 1,018 flats that were built by that company are being demolished. Can hon. Members imagine the human suffering caused by living in the midst of the demolition? It is a living nightmare because of vandalism, fires and burglaries. Yet these tenants, through no fault of their own, have to live in deplorable conditions.
The local authorities are not recognised in the Bill. They took the decision to build this type of accommodation on the persuasive arguments of various Governments, who altered housing subsidies to entice high density living, which will now have to be demolished. People will have to be rehoused and new buildings will have to be built, while the local authorities pay off the original loan debt charge. In this case, Manchester city council will be paying it off over the next 50 years, but that

is not recognised in the Bill. How can the Minister glibly say that there is no evidence that all or even a majority of these houses suffer from serious defects as a result of how they were built?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that an inspection had been made of properties built by Bison. If it was anything like the inspection made in Manchester by consultants who specialise in this type of property, the same problems will have been found. There will be inadequate bearings on bridge supports, stairwells leaning away from the main structure, insecure exterior wall panels, and an estimated cost to put the matter right of £9 million. There is no guarantee that if the council meets that sum, and that if such vast amounts of money are expended, the final result will be satisfactory. So, after spending £5·25 million on the Bison construction Manchester council is now having to spend another £9 million.
Since £5·25 million has been spent, the Minister cannot deny that this deterioration was not caused by lack of maintenance. It is a bit like buying a broken-down car that is irreparable and trying to blame the mechanic when he cannot put it right. The £9 million, or whatever Islington council has to pay, will not put the matter right. These properties deteriorate as one looks at them. Manchester city council received permission from the Department of the Environment to demolish some of these buildings. What are the Government's future proposals to give financial assistance to local authorities in these positions?
Bison is not the only contractor at whom I can point the finger of failure in this type of construction. Another contractor in my constituency, whom I have mentioned before, is Simpson and company. The same structural defects are emerging in a survey in an estate that that company built in the Hulme area of my constituency. New Jerusalems were being built, with Regency suites, terraces, and building contours, and we were shown artists' impression of courting couples walking hand-in-hand over rustic bridges and old people sitting in tree-lined square enjoying the environment. The reality is utter failure. Somebody, somewhere, must be responsible for the misery in these people's lives and the housing conditions that they are having to endure.
The Government are turning a blind eye to the massive housing failures because they are well aware of the gigantic cost of putting them right. The Government are hoping that the problem will go away, but it is becoming more acute with Government cuts in local government spending. That, in turn, affects maintenance, which in turn accelerates the deterioration of these estates and forces demolition, so that the tenants have to be rehoused. The Government will not confirm or deny that there will be a freeze on new house building soon. That will have an effect, if it happens, on the problems of rehousing people who have to be decanted from these defective properties.
That is the mess that the Government are in, and that is why we tell the Government that it is time to stop tinkering with the problem. The Bill does little to combat the disease of system building. That requires major surgery, and major financial support to get these properties sorted out.
9.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned asbestos. That problem is reaching serious proportions on the estate that I have already mentioned.


I do not want to over-dramatise the situation but priority must be given to the problem caused by the recent use of asbestos in public buildings. Inspection teams consisting of councillors and officers have had to be set up to determine financial priorities after the asbestos content of building materials has been analysed. Decisions on financing from the HIP allocations have already been taken and special allocations have been put on one side to deal with the asbestos problem. About £750,000 has been put on one side by the city council from the 1984–85 allocation. That will not go far, because one estate has about 500 houses which were built wih asbestos roof sheeting, and the replacement cost is estimated at about £500,000. Any damage to such asbestos sheeting means that the whole roof must be reinstated with another material because once asbestos is damaged it is dangerous. Large estates in Manchester and in my constituency are now affected to some extent by the use of asbestos.
It will be costly to replace asbestos that has been used for wall cladding, for example, on the deck access estates such as Wellington street and Hulme. It is all right for the Minister to say that that cost can be spread over several years, but the tenants want the repairs made now. Where asbestos has been used on exterior walls, rainwater pipes, gutters and so on, it can be removed with minimum effect on the tenant. However, if, as in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, asbestos has been used for lining such things as heater cupboards or outlet grills, the dangers are greater. Local authorities may then have to decant tenants, at an enormous financial cost.
Such materials were once acceptable but are now found to be not only defective but dangerous. They have been used to build houses since the time stipulated in the Bill. The problem will not go away. I do not want to over-dramatise, but in my area this is an emotive issue. The money must be found to meet this great expense. We are asking the Government to recognise the problem and stop tinkering about with it. This is only the tip of the iceberg. They should make money available for defective property that is no fault of the tenant or local authority.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to add my pleas to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on the issue of asbestos which is outlined in amendment No. 2.
Asbestos was widely used, particularly in the construction of council flat estates in the 1950 and 1960s. It is now widely recognised that asbestos, especially soft asbestos and especially where it is either damaged or able to be damaged, is dangerous to health. The Minister of State, Department of Employment admitted as much to the House last autumn. The fears of tenants and those who have purchased flats on estates where asbestos has been used are great. There are fears about the effect of asbestos dust on their health, and especially on the health of their children, as children are more susceptible to damage from asbestos than are adults.
I raised this issue under the Adjournment debate procedure some four weeks ago with regard to existing council tenants, and drew attention to the Bemerton estate in King's Cross which suffers particularly from this problem. It is an estate of 600 flats in my constituency. This very night tenants of the Bemerton estate are speaking at the housing committee meeting in the borough of Islington about the problems they face, and are seeking urgent assistance from the borough to remove all

dangerous asbestos from the estate. When I raised the matter, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who sadly is absent from the Chamber, expressed sympathy with the plight of the tenants and of the local authority, but offered no practical assistance to help the local authority. I believe that this is a failure by the Government to make available resources that are needed, and to recognise the problem.
Because of that failure by Government to help local authority tenants, I support the amendment, which will provide some assistance at least to the small number of people who may have purchased such properties. A number of those who have applied to purchase or who have purchased, properties on the Bemerton estate is small, but the problem is as acute for them as it is for tenants who are left wondering whether the local authority will have sufficient money to deal with their problems. Any person faced with the danger of asbestos and the possibility of damage to his health or that of his children is surely as justified to be concerned about the condition of his dwelling as a person living in a dwelling which, by the nature of its structure, gives rise to problems.
I therefore hope that the Government will accept, or show signs of being prepared to consider accepting, that the potential danger of asbestos is just as damaging co the welfare, health, safety and comfort of tenants and owners in properties, whether purchased or not, as the possibility of faults in the original construction.
As we now know, the inclusion of asbestos was a design fault in the first place. I hope that the Government will accept this not just for the relatively small number of people who will be directly affected, but because it would demonstrate to thousands of people who will not be directly affected or assisted by the Bill, yet who face the same problem as tenants on estates in which asbestos is used, that the Government have recognised the problem, and will take it seriously when considering resource allocation to local authorities facing such problems. I hope that the Government will give some consideration to those thousands of people in the country who deserve a better hearing from the Government than they have hitherto had.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked for assurances. He should know that since we have introduced the legislation and taken the initiative we need no encouragement to pursue the course of action suggested in the amendment. When it is necessary to use the power to assist owners we shall. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 1.
The hon. Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) referred to dates. I suspect that in their minds was the date placed on houses using load-bearing PRC components. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood appreciates that nothing in the Bill prevents the Secretary of State from designating a class of buildings by reference to such matters. Reference to the date when a building was designed or constructed will not always be arbitrary. I shall explain why it has arisen in one case. A type of building might be conveniently described by reference to the date of its design or construction, particularly when one firm designed or constructed several variations of the same type and only one variation was defective by reason of design or construction.
When PRC load-bearing component houses were involved, our designation was limited to the category


constructed before 1960 because only they were shown to be defective as a class nationally. The 1960 date marks a change in the physical characteristics of PRC dwellings. Only those designed before 1960 have been shown to be defective as a class. If there were evidence that other classes of building met the criteria in clause 1 on a national basis the Secretary of State would examine the evidence and decide whether he should exercise his power to give assistance to owners, bearing in mind the other uses of his powers. The date of design or construction and the materials or methods used are likely to be relevant only in so far as they are typical of various classes of dwelling which have been, or may need to be, examined for the purposes of establishing whether they should come within the assistance scheme. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment.
The Minister for Housing and Construction and myself are worried about asbestos. We do and shall continue to take it seriously. The amendment on that subject is unnecessary because clause 1(1) gives the Secretary of State power to designate as a class any buildings consisting of or including one or more dwellings if it appears to him that the buildings in the proposed class are defective by reason of their design or construction and, secondly, that general knowledge of the relationship between the proposed class of buildings and the defect of design or construction has led to a substantial reduction in the value of some or all of the dwellings. The amendment is unnecessary since, when a building is defective because of its design or construction through the use of asbestos, the terms of clause 1(1) already suffice. After that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Mr. Terry Davis: Do the Government intend to designate Smith houses so that they benefit under the Bill?

Mr. Ancram: The Government have not yet made a decision, and it would be premature for me to make a statement about it now.
When asbestos fits the criteria in the Bill, designation will follow.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Defects Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Terry Davis: s: I must express my disappointment, and that of my constituents, at the news that the Government still have not made up their mind whether to designate Smith houses as one of the groups that will qualify for the national scheme. It is more than a year since the Government, under pressure from both sides of the House, accepted the need for an investigation into Smith houses. The problem affects many people in my constituency and elsewhere in the city of Birmingham. There was all-party agreement when the Government announced at Easter 1983 that there would be an investigation by the BRE into a number of systems, and that Smith houses should be added to the list.
We were disappointed that the report on Smith houses came out a few weeks after the report on the other types

of system-built houses. Yet that is almost six months ago. The Government have had sufficient time to reach a decision. On Second Reading, the Minister dodged the question. When he was pressed about Smith houses he told us—two months ago—that he was still considering whether Smith houses should be included in the mandatory scheme. He said that he expected to reach a decision following his visit to Birmingham in May. A month has passed since that visit, but we are still waiting for the Minister to make up his mind.
While the delay continues, people in the city of Birmingham who have bought their houses from the local authority are in a state of great uncertainty. They do not know what will happen. They suffer from all sorts of defects in their houses. I know of people with failing eyesight who suffer the problem of wavy floors. The Environmental Health Department says that it is waiting for the bill. Other people are tied to Birmingham because, having bought their houses, they cannot sell them. They may wish to move because of the high rate of unemployment or they have retired and wish to move nearer to their families—perhaps married children living in other parts of the country.
While the Government procrastinate, a kind of feudalism is being introduced in Birmingham—it is 20th century feudalism. If the Minister wants to intervene I shall be happy to give way. I hope that he will say that, in view of my remarks, he has decided to make Smith houses the 29th group.

Mr. Gow: I visited Birmingham on 25 May and I saw a number of Smith houses. The problem is complex because we must decide whether the defects in the houses are common to the Smith type as a class or whether there is a local problem.
Two options are available under the Bill. First, there is the designation by my right hon. Friend under clause 1 and, secondly, there can be a local designation if a house is not designated by my right hon. Friend. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will announce his decision about the Smith houses at the earliest opportunity. The issue is complex and I shall be glad to have a further word with the hon. Gentleman later.

Mr. Davis: I shall be delighted to have further words with the Minister either in the House or behind the Chair. I hope that an early decision means before the Summer Recess, which is still about six weeks away. I do not understand why it is taking such a long time to reach a decision.
It is more than a year since representations were made by an all-party delegation to the Minister's predecessor. It is more than six months since we received the report from the BRE. It is more than a month since the Minister visited Birmingham. I do not know how often he visits Birmingham, but he is very welcome there. I shall be happy to show him the defects in the Smith houses in my constituency if he needs any convincing of the seriousness of the problem.
We look forward to an early decision. If the Minister does not reach a decision before the Summer Recess, he will hear something about that in the Adjournment debates.
While we want an early decision, we hope that it will mean Smith houses being included in the national scheme. I appreciate the effect of clause 10 and the possibility of


a local scheme, but that is not satisfactory to hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies, for it would still depend on money from the housing investment programme.
We have had recent experience of the Government cutting the housing investment programme for the city of Birmingham, and that has had a tremendous effect on improvement grants and on urban renewal in the city. We would not be happy, therefore, if Smith houses were added to the burdens on the city council of Birmingham. We want Smith houses to be regarded as a national, not a local, problem.

Mr. John Fraser: The purpose of the amendment was to elucidate the use of clause 1, and we have had sufficient assurances about designation if buildings have asbestos in them, about the materials used in construction and about the way in which the Minister will work on the criteria which come to him in making orders.
I wish, in making a final comment about asbestos, to illustrate the theme of equity between people in the private and public sectors. Under the Bill, a person who finds his home hard to sell—that is really what it amounts to—because there is a possible defect, or even because of the reputation of the building, will, under the circumstances, have the right to sell that dwelling back to the local authority and to move elsewhere.
Many dwellings which are let have problems with asbestos. Those dwellings have no less of a bad reputation than the dwellings which may have an apprehended defect because of the use of PRC reinforcement. On the one hand, therefore, we have homes that are hard to sell but in respect of which there is a remedy. On the other, local authorities have homes which are hard to let because of their reputation and defects.
In my constituency there is the new Loughborough estate, built by the GLC and handed over to Lambeth borough council. There, the problem of decanting tenants to clear the premises of asbestos is an absolute nightmare because the local authority does not have enough money

to undertake a quick programme; it must try to dovetail the removal of asbestos from the Loughborough estate with many other requirements, such as the re-proofing of other buildings. It is therefore a slow process because of insufficient money.
It is even more difficult to manage the estate because of the reputation of the dwellings being hard to let, and I am sure that that experience is reflected by many hon. Members in their constituencies. There are also the problems of squatting and dwellings left vacant for long periods because people do not want to move into them.
I plead with the Minister to try to treat both sectors with equal care. If he has the courage to designate dwellings in the private sector as being defective because there is asbestos in them, he will give a boost to local authorities and tenants if he can get their rented dwellings, dealt with more rapidly.
However, I believe that the Minister has given sufficient assurances about the use of clause 1 to justify my begging to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'the person concerned' and insert
'a person to whom this section applies'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 8, 23 and 35.

Mr. Gow: The purpose of this group of amendments is to clarify the position of personal representatives and beneficiaries and to extend the provision at present contained in claue 4(6) to include any person who acquires a relevant interest otherwise than on a disposal for value. These amendments improve the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 17, leave out from `(b)' to 'on' in line 18.

No. 8, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'he' and insert 'that person'.

No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out from 'defect' to first `the' in line 21 and insert `(bb)'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 28, leave out from 'if' to end of line 31 and insert
`the appropriate authority are of the opinion that—

(a) work to the building that consists of or includes the dwelling has been carried out in order to deal with the qualifying defect, and
(b) on the completion of the work, no further work relating to the dwelling was required to be done to the building in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 21 and amendment No. 22, in clause 3, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'the work'.

Mr. Ancram: This is essentially a technical amendment to recast clause 2(4). It is designed to make the subsection more readily understandable and effective and to prevent the absurdity of a person whose dwelling is properly reinstated from being able to pursue a new application to the point where the appropriate authority has to determine whether conditions in clause 3 or clause 4 have been met.
Government amendment No. 21 proposes modifications to clause 3(7). The purpose of the amendment is to clarify and, in one respect, tighten, the drafting of clause 3(7). I do not wish to anticipate what Labour Members may wish to say in favour of amendment No. 22. However, its effect, if agreed to, would be the complete opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve. It would create ambiguity and uncertainty about the extent of the work whereas we are trying more clearly to provide a definition. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will accept the Government's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 32, at beginning insert
`In this Act, references to a disposal, except in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, include references to a part disposal; but'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 74.

Mr. Roberts: These are essentially drafting amendments. Under clauses 2(2)(a) one of the basic criteria establishing eligibility for assistance under the scheme is that there must have been a disposal by a public sector authority of a relevant interest in the defective dwelling before the cut-off date. The fact that a reference to a disposal includes a reference to a part disposal is tucked away in clause 19. We think that it would be more helpful if that meaning were apparent in clause 2, which sets out the criteria for eligibility.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 6, leave out `of' and insert 'on which'.

No. 13, in page 4, line 8, after 'subsists', insert 'was acquired'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 3

ENTITLEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT GRANT OR REPURCHASE

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 37, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsection (8) below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 24.

Mr. Ancram: These are minor drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 37 [Clause 3], leave out 'they are satisfied that'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 1, leave out from 'determination' to end of line 8 and insert
`the applicant is entitled to assistance by way of reinstatement grant if—

(a) the authority are satisfied that each of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) below is met, and
(b) subsection (5) below does not apply in his case,

and in any other case he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase.'.
This is essentially a drafting amendment to achieve a simpler statement of the circumstances in which repurchase is the appropriate form of assistance. The amendment will be helpful to those who administer these provisions.

Mr. Tony Durant: The amendment applies to properties which could not be given a 30-year life following remedial works. In such circumstances repairs are uneconomic. Under the Bill, the suggested course of action is that local authorities should buy the properties back. The local authority in my constituency is concerned that one property in a row of houses might be so defective that it proves necessary to pull it down. Those living in the houses on either side of the house that is demolished will not know whether the property was sold on compassionate grounds because the occupant had to move somewhere else or whether it was in such a bad state that the council bought it back following a request from the tenant.
When circulars are issued on this matter I urge that the owners on either side of the property that is bought back should know why the property has been sold. They should know that it is in such a bad condition that it cannot be repaired. The demolition of the house will have an effect on their property. If it is pulled down and there is an empty space between the houses on either side of the demolished property, the walls of the remaining houses might be affected. There are many technical matters to be taken into consideration. It may not be necessary for repairs to be carried out to the remaining houses on either side of the demolished property but the demolition could have an effect on the owners of the adjoining properties and they should know about it.

Mr. Gow: In connection with any advice which the Department gives to local authorities, we shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point most carefully.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 18, after 'individual', insert
`and his successors in title'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 18, in page 5, line 20, leave out 'on satisfactory terms' and insert
'for a period of not less than 20 years'.
No. 19, in page 5, line 21, leave out 'lending institution' and insert 'building society'.
No. 20, in page 5, line 35, at end insert—
'(e) The applicant obtains a reliable guarantee for the quality and performance of the work required for a period of not less than 20 years based on a survey by a competent surveyor or structural engineer'.
No. 36, in clause 5, page 8, line 28, at end insert
'save that on completion of the work the applicant obtains a reliable guarantee for the quality and performance of the work for a period of not less than 20 years based on a survey by a competent surveyor or structural engineer.'.

Mr. Craigen: I have been reminded that today is the longest day of the year. I have no wish to prolong the debate, and I am sure that Ministers will accept that these amendments are in the interests of ensuring that there is value for money.
It is essential that, when the remedial work is carried out, there should be some guarantee of the longevity of PRC houses. I noted earlier the remarks of the Minister for Housing and Construction about his discussions with the building societies. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 involve the building societies. They deal with the length of mortgages, and with the lending facility. The building societies might be a safer bet, in respect of the purposes for which the amendments were designed.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 36 are concerned with the professional way in which the work is to be carried out and guaranteed. Proper surveying and building works must be carried out, as I am sure that the Minister will accept that the degradation of concrete has sometimes occurred because of lack of diligence on the part of a clerk of works or because of a fault in the specification, rather than because of the Nature of the concrete. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept that some guarantee should be required by the public authorities in order to ensure that the houses will have a suitably long life after the remedial work is done.

Mr. Durant: The amendments are at fault for two reasons, although I have great sympathy with their motivation. The cost of such surveys would be pretty high, and, as we have heard, the local authorities already have cost problems to cope with. The
guarantee for the quality and performance of the work
for a fixed period would put freehold property in the same position as leasehold property, in that when the guarantee ran out the value would immediately drop. The question of a guarantee or certificate or some other form of documentation is important, and I support the general tenor of the amendments.
When speaking on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to the building societies and the possibility of some system of warranty. I believe that that is what is required. I referred to this question on Second Reading. I hope that the Minister accepts that it is an important point. Someone may wish to stay in his house for a while. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has said, not everyone will wish to rush away from the property, and not all the properties are in a bad state. Someone might wish to move after perhaps ten years. They might have had the work done, so everything is in order, but all the people who did the work might have left—or they cannot be

found—and all the people in the council offices might be new, so there is no evidence to give a potential purchaser any confidence that the building has been done. I do not accept amendment No. 16, but I support the motivation behind it.

Mr. Gow: In Committee, the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) on Second Reading. The House will know that the Government proposed that the main form of assistance under the Bill should be grant-aid towards the cost of reinstating the defective dwelling whenever the dwelling concerned could be repaired satisfactorily. The House will also understand that the key requirement if reinstatement is to be an effective means of assistance must be to ensure that the owner of the house can sell the house after it has been repaired at a defect-free value.
Without such an assurance of the property being mortgageable after repair, the problem that confronts the private owner today will remain unsolved. We have therefore provided that unless the authority that makes a grant is satisfied that, following completion of the reinstatement work, the house would be likely to be mortgageable in the private sector the owner will have the right to ask that the local authority buy the house.
We are trying to establish a test of how the dwelling would fare on the open market immediately after repair. Marketability depends to a large extent on mortgageability, and the test is cast in the form of whether the main private sector bodies that lend for house purchase would be likely to accept the freehold of the repaired house as security for a loan on the terms that mortgagees normally regard as satisfactory.

Mr. Craigen: Has the Minister discussed this matter with the building societies and got their view on the objective that I have tried to put across?

Mr. Gow: We have indeed had discussions with the building societies and with the National House Building Council. The discussions are continuing. I said in response to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that we hope that, as a result of the discussions on which we are now engaged with the building societies, there will be a satisfactory solution that will give a real prospect in many cases of mortgageability being possible for the majority of people who are likely to want to remain in their present houses.
Amendment No. 17 is based on a misunderstanding. The authority concerned must make a decision as to whether assistance should be through reinstatement grant or through repurchase. It must make that decision when it considers the application. It is the mortgageability of the dwelling in its repaired state immediately after repair that the authority must take into account. When deciding whether the building will be mortgageable after repair, the authority should take into account the views of the lending institutions at that time. There is no logic in asking an authority to try to predict whether those institutions will lend on the security of the property in 20 or 30 years' time. However, building societies, when deciding whether to lend, take into account whether the dwelling is likely to be a marketable asset at the end of the mortgage term. In


that sense, the position is already taken into account in the provision as drafted. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Mr. Fraser: We are trying to be constructive, as the Minister knows. If an adequate guarantee scheme of one kind or another is given, that will not be more satisfactory to owners and will save the Government much expense. Those savings could be used for other housing purposes and should not go back to the Treasury.
One of the most helpful ways in which we could deal with this matter is for, say, the National House Builders Council to give a guarantee analagous to those given for newly constructed houses, backed by its insurance arrangements and enduring for 30 years instead of the usual 10 years.
If the Minister can achieve that and if it is acceptable to the building societies, it will go a long way towards underwriting the market and underwriting confidence in the houses that are not beyond repair, where it is a case of repair to minor rather than major defects. We would be very happy to hear the Minister say that he is aiding that sort of settlement.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps I could repeat what I said to the House in reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). We have been and still are in discussions with the Building Societies Association and the National House Builders Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for improving requirements or methods of repair of PRC houses and provide a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built by the private sector.
If we are able to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, it would meet the underlying purpose of the amendments, which I fully understand. But I have to say that the NHBC's guarantee, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is for 10 years and not for the longer period that he mentioned.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No 21, in page 6, line 1 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 15 and insert—

'(a) the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling is the work relating to the dwelling that is required to be done to the building that consists of or includes the dwelling in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect, and
(b) where there is work falling within paragraph (a) above, the work required to reinstate the defective dwelling includes—

(i) any work required, in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect, to be done to any garage or outhouse designed or constructed as that building is designed or constructed, being a garage or outhouse in which the interest of person eligible for assistance subsists and which is occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, and
(ii) any other work reasonably required in connection with work falling within paragraph (a) above or this paragraph.'.

No. 23, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
'(9A) Where a person who is eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling dies or disposes of his interest in the dwelling to a person to whom section 2 of this Act applies (otherwise than on a disposal for value), this Act shall apply as if anything done or treated by virtue of this subsection as done by or in relation to the person so eligible had been done by or in relation to his personal representatives or as the case may be, the person acquiring the interest.'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 4

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 7, line 1, after 'application' insert
'which they are required to entertain'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 4, leave out `(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27 and 30.

Mr. Roberts: These are drafting amendments to improve comprehension of the procedures that the local authority has to follow under clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 7, line 4, leave out `they are satisfied that' and insert 'in their opinion'.

No. 27, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(b)' and insert 'also—(a)'.

No. 28, in page 7, line 6, leave out 'not satisfied' and insert 'of the opinion'.

No. 29, in page 7, line 6, after 'is', insert 'not'.

No. 30, in page 7, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert `(b)'

No. 31, in page 7, line 8, leave out `so satisfied' and insert
'of the opinion that he is so eligible'.

No. 32, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'satisfied that the applicant' and insert
'required to entertain an application from an applicant who'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 7, line 37, leave out `and (2)' and insert
'(3) and (6A) (except paragraph (b)), or'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 34, 38, 40, 42, 43, 53, 56, 59, 64, 65, 86 and 90.

Mr. Ancram: The purpose of these amendments is to provide for an extension of the six-month time limit within which, under clauses 6(6) or 7(5) a person entitled to assistance by way of repurchase may require the authority to enter into an agreement for the repurchase on the terms and conditions previously agreed or determined.
The extension is similar to that currently provided by clauses 6(2) and 6(1). In addition, in Scotland there are time limits applying to the person entitled to assistance in clauses 7(3) and 7(4) relating to a request to the authority to strike out or vary conditions. These are dealt with in amendment No. 56 to allow extension of that period.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 7, line 38, leave out
`6(3) or, as the case may be, 7(1)'
and insert
`7(1), (2) and (5A) (except paragraphs (b) to (d))'.

No. 35, in page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 6

REPURCHASE

Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'in the defective dwelling' and insert


`so far as subsisting in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it (in this section referred to as the "interest to be acquired").'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39, 41, 44 to 49, 57, 58 and 87.

Mr. Gow: The purpose of this group of amendments is to clarify what land must be acquired by the appropriate authority on repurchase. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 38 in page 9, leave out lines 4 to 8.

No. 39, in page 9, line 13, after 'interest', insert 'to be acquired'.

No. 40, in page 9, line 14, after '(6)', insert
`and (6A) (except paragraph (a))'.

No. 41, in page 9, line 16, leave out
`of the person so entitled'
and insert `to be acquired'.

No. 42, in page 9, line 27, after 'agreement', insert
`(or within that period as extended)'.

No. 43, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
'(6A) The authority shall, if there are reasonable grounds for doing so, by notice in writing served on the person so entitled, extend (or further extend)—
('a) the period within which under subsection (1) above he may make a request under that subsection; and
(b) the period within which under subsection (6) above he may notify them of his requirement;
whether or not the period in question has expired.'.

No. 44, in page 9, leave out lines 33 to 40.

No. 45, in page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert:
'This section does not apply to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 7

REPURCHASE IN SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 6 and insert—
'A person who is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of a defective dwelling may, within the period of three months beginning with the service of the authority's notice under section 4(2) of this Act (or within that period as extended) request the authority in writing to notify him of the proposed terms and conditions for their acquisition of his interest so far as subsisting in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it (in this section referred to as the "interest to be acquired").
(1A An authority receiving a request under subsection (1) above'.

No. 47, in page 10, line 9, after 'interest', insert `to be acquired'.

No. 48, in page 10, line 12, leave out
'of the person so entitled'
and insert `to be acquired'.

No. 49, in page 10, line 14, leave out 'the defective dwelling' and insert 'it'.

No. 50, in page 10, line 16, after 'a', insert `term or '.

No. 51, in page 10, line 18, after second 'the', insert `term or'.

No. 52, in page 10, line 25, after 'a' insert 'term or'.

No. 53, in page 10, line 27, leave out from 'mouth' to first 'of in line 29.

No. 54, in page 10, line 31, after second 'the', insert `term or'.

No. 55, in page 10, line 33, after 'terms', insert 'or conditions'.

No. 56, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—
'(5A) The authority shall, if there are reasonable grounds for doing so, by notice in writing served on the person so entitled, extend (or further extend) the period within which—

(a) under subsection (1) above he may request them to notify him of the terms and conditions proposed for their acquisition of the interest to be acquired;
(b) under subsection (3) above he may request them to strike out or vary the term or condition;
(c) under subsection (4) above he may apply to the sheriff for determination of a matter;
(d) under subsection (5) above he may serve a notice of acceptance on there;
whether or not the period has expired.'.

No. 57, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
'(6A) Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act (except paragraph 4) has effect to supplement the provisions of this section'.

No. 58, in page 11, leave out lines 4 to 10.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 8

SECURE TENANCIES

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 12, line 33, leave out '7(1)' and insert `7(1A)—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 9

COSTS INCIDENTAL TO APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 13, line 34, leave out from 'or to end of line 38 and insert—

(a) any expenses in respect of legal services provided in connection with the authority's acquisition, and
(b) any other expenses in connection with negotiating the terms of that acquisition,
being in each case expenses which are reasonably incurred by him after receipt of a notice under section 6(3) or an offer to purchase under section 7(1A) of this Act.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the applicant to be reimbursed costs other than legal costs incurred in negotiating the terms of acquisition by the authority in cases of repurchase—for example, the cost of employing a surveyor rather than a solicitor to set up negotiations about the price at which the dwelling should be repurchased.

Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the amendment, but what will it add to public expenditure?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the relevant clause is very specific and refers only to legal costs. It is quite possible that it would behove the parties involved to engage a surveyor rather than a solicitor to carry out the negotiations. It might make much better sense for a surveyor to act on the vendor's behalf or to seek the advice of a valuer. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to be reimbursed the costs of such assistance as well as of purely legal costs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on public expenditure. I must confess that I have no precise knowledge of that.

Mr. John Fraser: That is all very well, but there are 16,500 homes involved. [f all the owners of those homes decided to use surveyors, even at modest rates of charge the cost could be about £3 million. If I asked the Government for £3 million to deal with asbestos in my


constituents' homes or if we asked for that sum to deal with another defect such as condensation or dampness which is commonplace in the public sector the request would be resisted. When 16,500 press the case for their surveyors' fees to be paid—quite properly, and I do not disagree with them—in a matter of a minute or so the Government can make a commitment in the House of Commons for between £1 million and £3 million in public expenditure. I do not oppose the amendment, but it highlights the Government's partiality and prejudice and their obsession with helping the private sector and denying the public sector.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I can only say that I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman does not oppose the amendment because, as he acknowledges and as I am sure that all hon. Members recognise, it is intended to assist the people whom we seek to help in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

NOTICES

Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in line 22 leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
'(1) A housing authority shall, within the period of three months beginning with the coming into operation of a designation under section 1 or 10 of this Act or a variation of such a designation, publish in a newspaper circulating in their area notice suitable for the purpose of bringing the effect of the designation or variation to the attention of persons who may be eligible for assistance in respect of such of the dwellings concerned as are situated within their area, unless they are of the opinion that—

(a) none of the dwellings concerned are so situated, or
(b) in respect of all of the dwellings concerned that are so situated, no person is likely to be eligible for assistance.
(2) If at any time it becomes apparent to a housing authority that a person is likely to be eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling within their area, they shall forthwith take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform him of the fact that assistance is available.'.
The amendment follows an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in Committee. It is self-explanatory, and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND RULES OF PROCEDURE

Amendment made, No. 64, in line 12 leave out '6(2)' and insert `6(6A)'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 13

JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made, No. 65, in line 32 leave out '6(2)' and insert '7(5A)'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 16

RULES AND ORDERS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in line 39 at end insert
`which shall be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 70, in line 1 leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Fraser: The amendments would provide for the making of all orders under the Act by affirmative procedure rather than by negative procedure. I know that this is well-worn ground, but it would be worthwhile to debate orders made under the Bill because it would give the House a further opportunity to make a comparison between the privately-owned and rented sectors. If we approve orders, we shall sanction fairly massive sums—up to £250 million of capital expenditure and £25 million to £30 million of revenue expenditure. Because of cash limits, money that is given for one purpose is taken from another purpose. Therefore, it is right for the House to have a chance to air its views about the priorities on expenditure on housing, and not to leave the matter to a Minister.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's brevity. The amendments would require all orders to be made by statutory instrument, requiring the approval of both Houses before they come into effect. The Bill refers to seven powers exercised by the order. The amendments are undesirable in three of those seven powers, because specific orders affecting financial expenditure conventionally require that these matters should be dealt with by the House of Commons only and not both Houses. More generally, the amendments would require that all orders should be approved by the affirmative resolution. We regard that as an unnecessary degree of supervision for matters, such as the appointing of a day or days for the coming into force of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in line 9, column 1, leave out from 'authority' to 'specified' in line 10.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 72 and 73.

Mr. Ancram: The basic purpose of this daunting amendment is twofold. First, it is to revise the procedure to be adopted when a public sector authority, other than the housing authority, states that it wishes to acquire the defective dwelling under clause 18. Secondly, it is to provide that, where the public sector body acquires the dwelling but is not a body which can grant a secure tenancy under clause 8, it shall either secure the grant of a secure tenancy or secure the grant of a protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1977, or the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, of the dwellinghouse or suitable alternative accommodation.
The amendments were inspired by an amendment which, although it was not formally moved, was tabled by the Opposition in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 21, line 11, column 1, at end insert
'and any predecessor so specified of the authority'.

No. 73, in page 21, leave out lines 12 to 26 and insert—

'(3) The body concerned may, within the period of four weeks beginning with the service of the appropriate authority's notice under subsection (2) above, give them notice in writing—

(a) stating that the body wishes to acquire the interest, and
(b) specifying the address of the principal office of the body and any other address that may also be used as an address for service.

(4) Where the appropriate authority (in the following provisions referred to as the "original authority") receive a notice under subsection (3) above, they shall forthwith give to the person entitled to assistance notice in writing (in those provisions referred to as a "transfer notice") of—

(a) the contents of the notice under subsection (39 above, and
(b) the effect of subsections (5) and (6) below.

(5) The body concerned shall, at any time after the transfer notice is given, be treated as being the appropriate authority (in place of the original authority) for the purposes of anything done or falling to be done under this Act by or in relation to the appropriate authority.

(6) Where a transfer notice has been given in respect of an interest—

(a) a request under section 6(1) or 7(1) of this Act in respect of the interest may be made either to the original authority or to the appropriate authority, and
(b) such a request made to the original authority (whether before or after the transfer notice is given) shall be forwarded by them to the appropriate authority.

(7) Where, apart from subsection (8) below, the appropriate authority acquiring an interest in a defective dwelling might be required under section 8 of this Act to grant a secure tenancy (within the meaning of that section) to any person, but—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the authority are not one of the following bodies, that is, the bodies mentioned in section 28(4) of the 1980 Act or a housing association falling within section 15(3) of the 1977 Act, or
(b) in relation to Scotland, the authority are not one of the bodies mentioned in section 10(2) of the Scottish Act of 1980.
section 8 of this Act shall have effect with the following modifications.

(8) Those modifications are—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words "a secure" there is substituted "or arrange for him to be granted an appropriate",
(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted—
"For the purposes of this subsection, a tenancy is an appropriate tenancy if it is either—

(i) a secure tenancy, or
(ii) a protected tenancy, other than one under which the landlord might recover possession under one of the cases in Part II of Schedule 15 to the 1977 Act or, as the case may

be, Part II of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act (cases where court must order possession)",
(c) subsections (4), (8), (9) and (10) shall not apply,
(d) in subsection (5), after the words "grant the tenancy" there is inserted "or arrange for it to be granted",
(e) in subsection (6), after the word "section" there is inserted "or under any arrangement made for the purposes of subsection (3) above", and
(f)in subsection (7), after the word "grant" there is inserted "or arrange for the grant of".'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 19

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendment made:

No. 74, in page 21, leave out line 32.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 20

PROVISION IN BUILDING SOCIETY AGREEMENTS TO BE DISREGARDED UNDER RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 42, leave out from `has' to 'appointed' in line 43 and insert
'its chairman, or the chairman of its board of directors or other governing body,'.
This is a drafting amendment. At present the definition in clause 20 (2) of "appropriate body" refers, inter alia, to a board of directors or other governing body of which the chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State. That definition is aimed initially at the National House Building Council, which is the only body known to the Secretary of State that fulfils the other criteria specified in the definition in clause 20 (2). The NHBC has no board of directors; its executive committee manages the business of the council and controls the holding of general meetings, but specific and substantial powers are conferred on the Scottish, Northern Ireland and finance committees. The amendment, which alters the definition, is designed to set the inclusion of the NHBC within the definition beyond reasonable doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 24, line 21, leave out 'and Wales' and insert 'Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 24, line 22, leave out '20, does not extend' and insert
'sections 7 and 13 extends'.
No. 79, in page 24, line 23, at end add
'subject to such modifications and applications as may be specified by Order in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974'.

Mr. Walker: My purpose in moving the amendments is expressly to show the disparity between two integral


parts of the United Kingdom, in that Northern Ireland is being treated as a separate entity in all matters pertaining to legislation.
With regard to housing defects, I can say with authority that Northern Ireland shares with its mother country the complex problems associated with defective housing. That fact was recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who has taken the heat out of a potentially explosive problem by declaring in general terms that action will be taken to protect the owners of such houses purchased through the public authority housing sales scheme.
However, it is regrettable that the Minister's statement was not broad enough to encompass the unfortunate owners who have purchased such dwellings in the private sector, in complete ignorance of defects that have developed or could subsequently develop. Irrespective of statements made and promises given, the people of Northern Ireland should have been included in the Bill. The same need exists to alleviate the problems. About 3,800 Orlit houses were built in the Province, and about the same number were built by a company called Fortus Construction. There are also Housing Executive cross-wall dwellings, and what are known as Ulster cottages. They all require urgent examination under the terms of the Bill.
We have been fed platitudes to the effect that there is no immediate danger to the residents of those houses. That might be true, but in view of the limited number of tests carried out, it is difficult to accept that statement completely. A spokesman for the Housing Executive said that until the tests are completed and fully evaluated, it will be impossible to establish a definitive policy for those dwellings. In view of that, I plead that Northern Ireland is included in this legislation urgently, and I hope that I have the sympathy and support of the House for my amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It may not come entirely as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). I also think it possible that the topic is one with which the Minister for Housing and Construction is not entirely unfamiliar.
In Northern Ireland there is no elective housing authority. The housing authority for the whole of the Province is a huge quango. If the legislation were concerned with the functions of housing authorities in England and Wales or in Scotland one would understand the logic of separate legislation for the different parts of the United Kingdom. But the Bill is concerned with the potential misfortune of private individuals who have purchased defective housing from public authorities. In that respect there is no difference between the different parts of the United Kingdom because, as my hon. Friend has said, there are numerous house owners in Northern Ireland who, like their opposite numbers in Great Britain, have purchased in all ignorance and good faith houses which were sold to them in ignorance and good faith—though defective—by local authorities. The same relief ought to be available to those in all parts of the kingdom and it should be available simultaneously and under the same legislation.
In the course of the debate we have had in diligent attendance upon the House representatives of the Scottish Office and of the Welsh Office. There is no technical reason why the Bill should not have extended to Northern Ireland and why, similarly, we should not have had the attendance of a Northern Ireland Minister.
Two clauses–7 and 13—have been sufficient to apply the provisions for England and Wales to Scotland. A little more complexity might have been involved in applying the same provisions to Northern Ireland, but in an amendment which is being considered with that moved by my hon. Friend the proposition is made that that application could be carried out by Order in Council.
The Government will be aware that from 1977 onwards there has been a procedure whereby, in cases applying identically or to the same effect, Great Britain legislation, an Order in Council subject to negative resolution procedure and not, therefore, normally requiring any of the time of the House, would be appropriate. There is, therefore, no difficulty in legislation of this type being framed so as to apply to Northern Ireland, and the application technicalities would not be of inconvenience or trouble to the Administration or to the House.
There is only one assurance that can be given to citizens of this country that they will all be treated alike and that relief will come to them at the same time and under the same conditions, and that is, that the relief should be extended in the same legislation. It is that which my right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking in the terms of the amendment.
I do not think our case can in common sense and justice be resisted. I would have thought that it was a case that would command the sympathy of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill. Perhaps it might be useful, however, if I say that a case which has long been urged, and on so many occasions as this one, very often has to be brought gradually into acceptance. The old proverb about the constant dripping that wears away a stone is nowhere more applicable than to a demand for self-evident justice, for that which has to be constantly repeated until, by dint of repetition or by dint of fatigue of Government, its self-evidence dawns also upon those who can bring relief. I do not know whether that moment will have arrived tonight in the context of this Bill. There could be no Bill more suitable for it to be announced. I almost wonder whether there is any Minister by whom it might be more suitable to be promolgated. Hon. Members on this Bench remain not only hopeful, but confident that sooner or later this House will see the justice, convenience, and the common sense of legislating wherever possible—this is a possible case—simultaneously for all parts of the Kingdom. The day will come—I hope that it will come on midsummer day 1984.

Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in an earnest desire to see this legislation cover Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. There is no reason why the appropriate legislation should not have been for Northern Ireland as well as for England, Scotland and Wales. I have listened attentively to all this debate, and the problems that the people in England, Scotland and Wales are suffering are the same as those that the people of Northern Ireland are suffering. Therefore, it would be most appropriate, and this would have been the right legislation, to have included


Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the House will heed that cry. I would be delighted to hear the Minister prove me wrong, and I shall wait with interest for his reply.
On the Bill generally, I sympathise with many of the comments that have been made by Opposition Members. The Bill covers a particular group of people, but does not cover the vast number of people who also have problems that need to be attended to. I am delighted that it assists those who have purchased their dwellings, but it should attend to the problems of the large number of people who are in public housing that needs proper attention, and the interest of the House.
In Northern Ireland I appreciate that we have but one housing authority. That authority has been treated favourably, with finance to tackle many problems. While the House can sympathise with local authorities in their plight of having many houses with defects, the sympathy of the House will not change the problem—but the appropriate finance to fund programmes to solve those problems must be forthcoming. I trust that the Government will look favourably on that.
I join with hon. Members who have spoken, and I trust that there will be an urgent movement in the House, so that those houses that have defects will be properly attended to by the appropriate legislation, not only for England, Scotland and Wales, but for—dare I say it—the best part of the family, beloved Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gow: I understand the reasons which prompted the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), a member of the Committee, to table the amendment which stands in his name. I understand too the reasons which prompted the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to speak in support of it.
The House may know that on the day following the announcement which I made in the House of a scheme to help the owners of defective houses which had originated in the public sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, made a statement announcing that there would he a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland which was similar to the scheme which I had announced on the previous day.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked for two things. He asked for parity of treatment and time. Any differences between the scheme which will be applicable to Northern Ireland and the scheme which will be applicable to Great Britain will be so minor as will make the scheme virtually indistinguishable for practical purposes. I cannot say this evening on what date either the Bill now before the House or legislation specifically applying to Northern Ireland will have effect. But I do say that—the right hon. Gentleman had a fair point here—it is likely that the timing of the legislation applying to the Province will be later than the timing of the legislation applying to Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North asked—I hope that I did not misunderstand him—whether we could extend the Bill to properties which had never been in the public sector to properties which had always been in the private sector. We have made a distinction throughout discussion on the Bill between the responsibility of the Government in respect of properties which originated in

the public sector and the responsibility of the Government towards properties which have never been in the public sector. It would be a significant step for the Government to give a guarantee in respect of property which had never been in the public sector.
The right hon. Member for Down, South commented on the fact that there was no Minister for Northern Ireland on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was regretting that since the Bill did not cover Northern Ireland there was therefore not a representative of the Northern Ireland office on the Front Bench. It was not uttered in criticism, rebus extantibus.

Mr. Gow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the legislation to extend to Northern Ireland. He said that there must be parity of treatment. I remind the House that we have frequently had separate legislation on housing matters for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Indeed, in the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which sets out the right to buy in Scotland, there are quite significant differences between the right to buy for those who live in Scotland and the right to buy for those who live in England and Wales.
I say that only to give a partial reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not always treat in housing matters in a way which is identical those who live in Scotland and those who live in England and Wales.
I cannot advise the House to agree to the amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the statement which he made on 11 November that there would be separate legislation for Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister has properly drawn attention to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State. The Minister will recall that he and I exchanged letters the very week that he made the original statement in the House in November. Can he think of any good reason why there should be a much greater delay, bearing in mind that the mechanism was put into effect in the same week in Northern Ireland and in the House?

Mr. Gow: I shall certainly draw the pertinent comments of the right hon. Gentleman to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

11 pm

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister says that the Bill will be applied almost word for word to Northern Ireland by order. Under the Bill as it applies to England, Wales and Scotland, the local authority will receive only 90 per cent. reimbursement of reinstatement grant, and 75 per cent. reimbursement of the cost of repaying a mortgage on the defective value of the dwelling if it repurchases. In Northern Ireland, where housing is run by an executive, will this be dealt with on the same basis? In Northern Ireland, will the Government be bearing 100 per cent. of the cost of reinstatement or repurchase, whereas in England the Government will be bearing only 90 per cent. in one case and 75 per cent. in the other case of the cost of reinstatement or repurchase?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the publication of the draft order in council before we are able to answer that question.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I reassure the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that the method of calculating and imposing the rate in Northern Ireland will ensure that the ratepayers in Northern Ireland bear exactly the same share as those in the rest of the United Kingdom? At least, if they do not, it is the fault of the calculating mechanism, and not the intention of the legislation.

Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and for his support of the breach of the principle of caveat emptor.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1

REINSTATEMENT GRANT

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'or'.
Amendment 80, and amendments 81, 82 and 83, are clarifying amendments in that they ensure, where necessary, that the percentages determining grant payable are applied to the expenditure limit and not to the cost or estimated cost of the work, thus preserving the differential between normal cases of 90 per cent. grant and 100 per cent. hardship cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 25, line 14, at end insert
'or
(c) the expenditure which is the maximum amount permitted to be taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph, '.

No. 82, in page 25, line 15, leave out 'less' and insert `least'.

No. 83, in page 25, line 24, leave out
'The amount of reinstatement grant payable shall not exceed'
and insert
'The maximum amount of expenditure permitted to be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph 1 above shall be'.—[Mr. Ancram]

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 26, line 7, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 8 and insert
'cost of so much of the qualifyng work as has been executed at that time'.
Paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 allows the authority to repay reinstatement grant as a single sum on completion of the qualifying work or by instalments. Paragraph 4(2) makes provision as to the payment of grant by instalment. The amendment is designed to ensure that instalments may be paid only in respect of work actually done. This would be consistent with the provisions for payment of grant by instalment under part VII of the Housing Act 1974.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

REPURCHASE

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 26, line 31, leave out '95 per cent.' and insert '100 per cent.'.
If the amendment is accepted, when a local authority repurchased a house, it would reimburse the private owner

100 per cent. of the value of the house rather than 95 per cent., as is presently proposed. I have mixed feelings about the amendment. Since the amendment was tabled, the Minister has also tabled amendments which remove some burden from private owners, because of a willingness to meet survey costs and professional fees, apart from legal fees. The potential loss to the private owner has thus been mitigated, and this lessens the case for 95 per cent. The 5 per cent. is a portion of the claim borne by the owner, rather like the excess on an insurance policy. The Minister knows that a large number of people will have written to him stating that logically there should be 100 per cent. reimbursement. The view incorporated in the amendment has been put forward by Shelter and many other organisations of private owners. It would be advisable for the Minister to place on record the reason why he remains wedded to the principle of 95 per cent. rather than 100 per cent.

Mr. Gow: The Government believe, and I think that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) believes, that the scheme of assistance in the Bill through which on repurchase the owner will receive 95 per cent. of the defect value of a house is generous. The hon. Gentleman knows that, to calculate the value of a house, however excellent the district valuer is, is an imprecise science. The difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. allows for a proper margin of error which may go one way or another. We think that the scheme is generous and that 95 per cent. of the defect value is reasonable. I understand the argument for 100 per cent. One could make a case for 90 per cent., but we have concluded that 95 per cent. is correct.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 26, line 35, leave out '7(1)' and insert '7(1A)'.

No. 87, in page 26, line 38, leave out 'in a defective dwelling'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 26, line 41, leave out 'following assumptions' and insert
'assumptions specified in paragraph (2) below and on the basis that no account is taken of any right to the grant of a tenancy under section 8 of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 89, in page 27, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 25.

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to make clear the assumptions that are to be made in valuing a dwelling under schedule 2 in the case of repurchase. The particular provision which these amendments seek to clarify is that in paragraph 2(2)(e) of schedule 2, which requires the valuation of an interest to be made on the assumption that, subject to paragraph 2(2)(a) to (d), the seller is selling subject to the rights and burdens which actually exist, but disregarding, first charges discharged under the schedule, and, secondly, any right that the applicant of a beneficiary may have to the grant of a tenancy under clause 8 and in consequence to remain in occupation of the dwelling.
The amendments will be welcomed by those responsible for implementing the scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 27, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 25.

No. 90, in page 28, line 30, leave out '7(1)' and insert `7(1A)'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Schedule 3

PUBLIC SECTOR AUTHORITIES

Amendments agreed to: No. 91.

No. 92, in page 33, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—[Mr. Ancram.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

West Lothian (Economic Development)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is unable to be here tonight, but he fully supports my anxiety and wishes to be associated with my remarks.
The origin of the debate lies in the severe rate of unemployment in West Lothian. In the Bathgate-Livingston travel-to-work area the unemployment rate was 21 per cent. at the last count. Several areas in that region have an even worse unemployment rate. On the Murrayfield estate in Blackburn for instance, unemployment is 38 per cent.
If British Leyland closes its plant at Bathgate unemployment in the travel-to-work area will rise to between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. The precise figure does not matter. The social desolation at that level of unemployment would be so great that it would be pointless meticulously to measure the precise percentage. Within some pockets in the district, the level of unemployment would reach a figure that previously would have been unimaginable. In Blackburn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it would exceed 40 per cent., as it would in Addiewell in my constituency. The West Lothian district would have the highest, densest area of unemployment anywhere in central Scotland, which already has an average level of unemployment that is far too bleak.
Although the closure of BL will make the unemployment position much worse, I stress that the case that I intend to advance does not rest on the assumption that the BL plant will close. I fully support the work of the shop stewards and work force to retain the plant. But even if we are successful in keeping every job at the plant, we already have, and will continue to have, a severe unemployment problem that demands a response from the Government. I shall not labour the point further because the severity of our job crisis, is accepted by the Government.
The Minister will appreciate that in our view a large part of the blame must rest with the Government for pursuing policies that have been so disastrous for the manufacturing and engineering industries that previously provided so many of the jobs that we have now lost. I have not come to the House tonight to apportion blame. The problem that we are experiencing is of such gravity that the unemployed expect more of us than the scoring of political points about who is to blame, but to the extent that the Government are to blame for the crisis, we can surely call upon them to respond positively to the constructive points that I shall now put.
My points follow closely the package of measures that have been developed by Lothian region and West Lothian district council, on which they are both agreed. I emphasise that those two local authorities do not always see eye to eye; One is Conservative-controlled and the other Labour-controlled. They have reached agreement on what the West Lothian district needs if it is to tackle the social dereliction of the unemployment problem that it now faces.


I do not expect the Minister to give a snap decision tonight, although I shall not reject such a snap decision if it is favourable. When he responds, I expect him to give the House an assurance that these matters will be considered not only sympathetically but urgently. We do not have two years until the closure of BL to take measures—the first voluntary redundancies have been called for this week.
The first measure, which is on the list approved by the two local authorities, is that the remainder of West Lothian district should be granted special development area status. The case for that is so overwhelming that it does not need to be expanded further. It is palpably the case that we have achieved a level of unemployment that demands that the area be given the top tier of status, whatever that might be when it emerges from the White Paper on regional assistance.
Immediately adjacent to the BL plant is an industrial estate, which is poorly developed, with large amounts of green field sites available for future development. It is plain nonsense that that site, which could provide the green field site for incoming industry, should not enjoy the top level of assisted area status so as to provide an opportunity to create jobs to replace those that are being destroyed down the road.
We need from the Government guidance and support in developing a public agency that can promote and develop the job opportunities in the area. It is especially important how the site of the BL plant is handled.
The present production sheds are not attractive to modern industry. Few modern concerns would want to come to those enormous hangars of sheds and use them for anything remotely resembling the mass assembly that has gone on in the motor vehicle industry. We need an agency to take over the site, preferably at a knockdown price, from British Leyland and to convert, manage and promote the buildings.
Again, that does not depend on BL closing its remaining operations. Any hon. Member who has gone round the site—I hope that many will do so on Saturday—will have been struck by the large amount of shed and factory space already standing empty on the site and available for creative use, if we had some form of public agency to handle the conversion.
Perhaps BASE—the Bathgate area support for enterprise—offers the vehicle for this task. The Government and BL have committed themselves to expanding their support and subsidy to BASE. But if BASE is to tackle this job, however excellent its work may have been, it will require a major leap in its resources, its funding and status. It will also require the support of other public agencies, notably the SDA, the Scottish Development Agency, which is one of the partners in BASE, because BASE will need a ladder of property which only the SDA can supply to meet the demand that it has already stimulated. BASE has now brought forward a number of entrepreneurs and redundant workers who are looking for premises, of which there is already a shortage in the area, and that shortage could be met only by a major provision of property by the SDA.
Thirdly, one of the other partners of BASE is, of course, British Leyland, which has a major social responsibility in the Bathgate area. For 20 years it has enjoyed the loyal support of, and had a good productive

relationship with, its work force. It cannot now, at the end of those 20 years, walk away from the social consequences of closure and of removing the jobs of that work force.
I am impressed by the fact that British Steel, wherever it has closed down a steel plant, has left behind local opportunities created by British Steel Industries Ltd. on the basis of an investment fund set up jointly by British Steel and the Government.
The consequence for Bathgate of the rundown of the BL plant from 6,000 to 2,000 workers, and now the possibility of the total closure of the plant, creates precisely the same social circumstances in the Bathgate area as we have witnessed in the steel towns and should call forth the same response in a fund, to which we have every right to expect BL to make a contribution, to attract and support new jobs to replace the jobs that are being destroyed.
Both Lothian region and West Lothian district council have called for a fund. Lothian region has put on such a fund the figure of £5 million. In all the circumstances, that is a most modest sum and far less than the Government will be shelling out in West Lothian in the coming year in unemployment benefit for the people whose jobs are being destroyed.
My fourth point lies fairly and squarely within the competence of central Government. If we are to succeed in developing the local economy to cope with the crisis we face, we are entitled to expect improvements to the infrastructure of the area, such as the transport network. Bathgate has potentially the great attraction and advantage of being centrally located and, therefore, in giving easy access to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
To do so, however, it must be plugged into the motorway system. There are plans on the drawing board, and there is reserve space on the ground, for a junction to join Bathgate to the M8. That junction should now go ahead as a matter of priority, as should the link up between the M8 and M9. Those measures would provide jobs in the short run in the area in construction, and in the long run would make it much more attractive to industry.
I also press the Minister to look for a way in which the Bathgate railway line can be reopened to passenger traffic. It has always struck me as a great planning failure that the Bathgate line, which runs through the Livingston new town, was closed to passenger traffic shortly before Livingston new town was designated. That railway line, if reopened to passenger traffic, would enable the work force of Bathgate and Livingston to seek jobs in Edinburgh much more readily, and would open up the Edinburgh jobs market to those who become unemployed in the Bathgate area.
Lastly, we must recognise—as I believe that the Government have indeed recognised—that any comprehensive solution to the jobs crisis must grapple with the fact that many members of the work force who are now threatened with redundancy, and many of those who are already unemployed, are more than 40 or 50 years old. When we analyse the length of time for which men in that age group in West Lothian have been unemployed, we find that half the unemployed men aged over 40 have been unemployed for over a year and a third for over two years. Plainly, unemployed men in that category will never work again unless there are special training schemes, and special projects that will provide work for them. The MSC and the other Government agencies have a clear role to play in making such provision.
Hitherto, I have rested my case for Government action in West Lothian on the need for attention to be addressed to the high unemployment levels there. No one would dispute the fact that unemployment is high and the need is great. However, the high current level of unemployment is creating an image of West Lothian as an unattractive and unrewarding place. That was brought home to me tonight when a television interviewer asked me whether West Lothian was not the white elephant of the Scottish economy. I cannot accept the contention that my constituents are in any way white elephants, or that the unemployment level is a ball and chain which will prevent West Lothian responding very adequately to any industrial opportunities that it may be offered.
West Lothian is an area of high potential as well as high need. It is in the centre of Scotland. It has a skilled work force and a long tradition of industrial work. It has an excellent further education college, and a local authority that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of industry. It contains areas of great beauty, from the sweep of the Pentland hills to the shore of the firth. On a day when the cooking stoves in the House of Commons have had to be turned off because the weather has been so hot, one might add that West Lothian does not suffer from the extremes of climate with which we have to cope in the south.
The area has great potential. That is demonstrated by the success of Livingston, which has attracted many high technology and high-value industries. If there is a "silicon glen" in Scotland, it is in the area of Livingston new town, and that will provide an enormous spin-off for any other industry that moves into the area.
If we are to unlock the great potential of the area, there must be a positive response from the Government to the crisis which the area now faces. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is to be congratulated on raising this important subject. I recognise and fully share his concern, and that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), about the situation in West Lothian and, in particular, the implications of the closure of Leyland Vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I disagree with his remarks about Government policy, but he did not seek to make Government policy the subject of this debate.
We have already considered what action could be taken to help to regenerate the local economy. I have taken careful note of the specific measures that the hon. Gentleman has suggested tonight, and they will be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend and the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has said, fairly, that he does not expect specific decisions to be announced tonight.
I do not wish to sound complacent or to minimise the difficulties which West Lothian faces. The present overall unemployment rate in the Bathgate travel-to-work area is 19·2 per cent. and, while it is always difficult to predict the effect of a closure on unemployment rates, that rate would increase by 3·5 percentage points if the Leyland Vehicles closure was to be implemented immediately—which, of course, it is not.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the concentration of especially high levels of unemployment

in some areas. However, the area has strengths. and that brings me to the hon. Gentleman's fair point about Livingston. Livingston new town has an outstanding record in attracting especially microelectronic firms and related industries such as NEC Semiconductor, Burr-Brown and Shin-Etsu Handotai, the first silicon wafer plant in the United Kingdom. It recently made a £30 million investment that will mean 400 jobs by 1989. The new town has been an outstanding success. The Kirkton campus in Livingston is proving one of the most attractive and successful of the science parks. I do not apologise for reeling off a few statistics. This year, 64 new firms have decided to set up in Livingston, providing more than 900 new jobs. That is a major contribution to a net increase in employment of more than 1,000 jobs in one year.
It would be misleading, however, to suggest that activity in Livingston is restricted to electronics or even to manufacturing industry because, with the expansion of factory space, more than 44,000 sq. m. of offices have been built. The town provides employment in the service industry and white collar sector.
The key point for this debate, which was fairly made by the hon. Gentleman, is that this is not just Livingston's success story. Like other Scottish new towns, Livingston is a growth point. It has an important sub-regional role and does not stand in splendid isolation from the rest of West Lothian. A large proportion of its work force is drawn from nearby towns, including Bathgate, and many of Livingston's residents travel to work in neighbouring communities. The development corporation regards its broader role as supporting the economic development of the district.
In regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the image of West Lothian, it is encouraging that at Bathgate yesterday, Heat and Control of San Francisco announced a major investment programme that will at least double its present factory space. It told the press:
We intend to put Bathgate on the map.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bathgate area support for enterprise, or BASE, which I was delighted to be invited formally to launch last September. BASE is supported jointly by West Lothian district council, Lothian regional council, Leyland Vehicles and the Scottish Development Agency. The hon. Gentleman referred to the SDA's role. In addition to funding 25 per cent. of the cost of the initiative, the SDA, through its small business division, maintains close liaison with the director of BASE. The agency has agreed to provide factory units in the Bathgate area as and when BASE identifies demand. The SDA has now agreed to join Leyland Vehicles in extending support for BASE from three to five years. That was one of two decisions that Leyland Vehicles announced in relation to the area, the other being the consultancy study of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible expansion of BASE. The SDA is considering, in consultation with the director of BASE, how that initiative can be expanded to take on a wider remit. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the announcement of the Enterprise Fund for Youth this week. Bathgate is one of the three areas in Scotland that will benefit from it. I hope that it will contribute to the provision of employment for 16 to 25-year-olds who wish to set up on their own.
I shall deal specifically with the British Leyland plant. The most immediate task for the Scottish Office is to assist


the efforts of a new operator or operators who would be willing to take over the plant. It might be helpful to the House if I reported on the latest position on that aspect.
Officials of my Department have been in touch with Mr. Charles Nickerson of Marshall Ltd, who has expressed interest in taking over the BL engine building facilities, and further discussions are planned. Although the disposal of the plant is in the first instance a matter for negotiation between BL and the prospective purchaser or purchasers, my Department is prepared to do all that it can to assist a takeover.
In addition to pursuing the interest that has been expressed by Mr. Nickerson, Locate in Scotland teams at home and abroad are actively and urgently engaged in the effort to find an overseas buyer for the BL plant. Abroad, LIS in the United States, Europe and Japan is using its contacts in the international business community in an effort to promote the facility. At home, in the past few weeks a team has been completing the groundwork necessary for a professional mailshot campaign to overseas manufacturers.
LIS officials have had meetings with the management of Leyland Vehicles and have visited the Bathgate plant to see at first hand the facilities for sale and to learn of the company's attitude to any potential overseas buyer. The next step will be to write to major manufacturers worldwide with details of the BL facility, which the company is presently preparing, the West Lothian area in general, and the Government financial incentives that could be made available towards the purchase. Naturally, LIS stands ready to follow up immediately any interest that may emerge.
We recognise, however, that the task of finding new investment for the Bathgate facility is extremely difficult, in view of the decline in the worldwide market for trucks and existing capacity in the industry. But we are not defeatist, and interest in the plant from any quarter will be vigorously sought and pursued.
Nevertheless, it would be optimistic to think in terms of a complete takeover of the BL plant and work force, or to believe that the Leyland employees will necessarily find new jobs easily in the industries that are being attracted to Livingston. The hon. Member for Livingston fairly made a point about the high proportion of older workers in the Leyland work force.
My right hon. Friend and I are therefore arranging to see representatives of West Lothian district council and Lothian regional council as soon as possible to discuss their proposals for remedial action, as the hon. Gentleman has put them to the House tonight. In due course it would also be appropriate to include in discussions representatives from BASE, from Livingston Development Corporation and the Scottish Development Agency in the talks about what needs to be done.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of special development area status for the Bathgate area. Livingston

has that status already. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, has already told the hon. Member for Linlithgow that we are not unsympathetic to Bathgate's case. However, as my hon. Friend also said, we are shortly to review the assisted area map as a whole, when we shall be able to take a comprehensive view of the matter.
I think that the hon. Member for Livingston may accept that it would merely cause problems for potential investors if specific changes were made at this stage when, in a few months, there may be more major changes in the coverage of the map and of the boundaries of the travel-to-work areas on which the map is constructed. That is why we believe that it would be in everyone's interests if all the prospective changes to the map were made and announced at the same time. In taking our decisions we shall, of course, pay close regard not only to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate but also to the case made by West Lothian district council, which has already replied to the White Paper on regional industrial development.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues. He fairly said that he would not expect decisions to be made on them tonight. I accept the importance of his point about retraining and the role of the Manpower Services Commission in relation to the older British Leyland workers. With regard to rail links and the reopening of the Bathgate line, it is a matter for British Rail. Lothian region could consider assisting it. That would be a matter for the region. I understand that the regional council and Livingston Development Corporation will assist BR to build a station at Livingston on the Edinburgh-Shotts line. That will improve communications for the area.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned road links. Lothian is primarily responsible, as the highway authority. The region has recently completed the Bathgate-Armadale link on the M8–M9 link road. A start will be made this year on the A89 Starlaw roundabout link. That opens up the possibility of a direct link between Bathgate and the M8, a point made by the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to discuss road links between Bathgate and the M8, and between Bathgate and Livingston, with Lothian regional council.
West Lothian is an area with problems. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that it is also an area with successes and potential. It is essential that we build on those successes and that potential. There is a range of possibilities for action, which the hon. Gentleman suggested to the House. I assure him that they will be considered carefully and sympathetically, particularly at the meetings that we will have with West Lothian district council and Lothian regional council in the near future. After those meetings, we shall decide on the appropriate follow-up on the various suggestions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.